PDA

View Full Version : The Pope and The Jews



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

pefjr
03-02-2011, 10:39 PM
Well, isn't this nice of the pope to forgive these murderers for the death of that barefoot preacher. The vatican has it all covered, from creating miracles for sainthood, to exorcism. Is there anything this infallible pope can not do?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_jews

GregH
03-02-2011, 10:59 PM
I just don't see how any reasonably intelligent person can take religion in general, but particularly the Catholic religion seriously. If it didn't adversely affect so many people, it would be comical with all it's pomposity and over-the-top self-importance.

Rich Jones
03-02-2011, 11:04 PM
So, I guess this is the Atheist thread. Think I'll go elsewhere.

nautiguy
03-02-2011, 11:50 PM
Well, isn't this nice of the pope to forgive these murderers for the death of that barefoot preacher. The vatican has it all covered, from creating miracles for sainthood, to exorcism. Is there anything this infallible pope can not do?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_jews

This is the most blatantly antisemetic comment I've ever seen in the forum. I don't know how to get a thread pulled and someone banned, but this is just obscene, and the OP should go.

Norm

George Jung
03-02-2011, 11:59 PM
Just an observation, but - for a bunch of self-described atheists, you all certainly spend a lot of time reading about the RCC, and thinking about it, as well.

Maybe you need some new hobbies! You don't really seem to be enjoying this one.

B_B
03-03-2011, 12:06 AM
This is the most blatantly antisemetic comment I've ever seen in the forum.
While I'm the last guy who'll come to Junior's defense...ok, apparently I'm the first, on this thread at least (damn!).

It's sarcasm.

You need to read his comment in the context of historical Vatican treatment of Jews, particularly with regards to the death of Jesus. The Pope's decision to forgive the Jews their sin is pure condescension and goes against over a thousand years of Roman dogma.

(b.t.w. if you ever need to report Junior in the future, just press the little black triangle with the ! in the middle on the lower left of the offending post. The opposite side, but on the same line, of the 'Reply' options.)

peb
03-03-2011, 08:37 AM
The Vatican was one of the few international organizations which systematically tried to save as many Jews as possible in WWII. It did more, with less resources to combat the killing of Jews than any country.


http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp

Excerpts

Speaking to an audience of 250,000 pilgrims in Lourdes, France, the future Pius XII stated that the Nazis "are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."
...

The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: ‘The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.’ "

...

Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide states that Pius XI "had good reason to make Pacelli the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. . . . Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it ‘neo-Paganism.’ "[

...
"Von Ribbentrop, granted a formal audience on March 11, 1940, went into a lengthy harangue on the invincibility of the Third Reich, the inevitability of a Nazi victory, and the futility of papal alignment with the enemies of the Führer. Pius XII heard von Ribbentrop out politely and impassively. Then he opened an enormous ledger on his desk and, in his perfect German, began to recite a catalogue of the persecutions inflicted by the Third Reich in Poland, listing the date, place, and precise details of each crime. The audience was terminated; the Pope’s position was clearly unshakable."[

...
While the U.S., Great Britain, and other countries often refused to allow Jewish refugees to immigrate during the war, the Vatican was issuing tens of thousands of false documents to allow Jews to pass secretly as Christians so they could escape the Nazis. What is more, the financial aid Pius XII helped provide the Jews was very real. Lichten, Lapide, and other Jewish chroniclers record those funds as being in the millions of dollars—dollars even more valuable then than they are now.

....

Pius XII also took a public stance concerning the Jews of Italy: "The Pope spoke out strongly in their defense with the first mass arrests of Jews in 1943, and L’Osservatore Romano carried an article protesting the internment of Jews and the confiscation of their property. The Fascist press came to call the Vatican paper ‘a mouthpiece of the Jews.’ "[

...
"The Pope sent out the order that religious buildings were to give refuge to Jews, even at the price of great personal sacrifice on the part of their occupants; he released monasteries and convents from the cloister rule forbidding entry into these religious houses to all but a few specified outsiders, so that they could be used as hiding places. Thousands of Jews—the figures run from 4,000 to 7,000—were hidden, fed, clothed, and bedded in the 180 known places of refuge in Vatican City, churches and basilicas, Church administrative buildings, and parish houses. Unknown numbers of Jews were sheltered in Castel Gandolfo, the site of the Pope’s summer residence, private homes, hospitals, and nursing institutions; and the Pope took personal responsibility for the care of the children of Jews deported from Italy."[

....
Rabbi Lapide records that "in Rome we saw a list of 155 convents and monasteries—Italian, French, Spanish, English, American, and also German—mostly extraterritorial property of the Vatican . . . which sheltered throughout the German occupation some 5,000 Jews in Rome. No less than 3,000 Jews found refuge at one time at the Pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo; sixty lived for nine months at the Jesuit Gregorian University, and half a dozen slept in the cellar of the Pontifical Bible Institute."[

.....

Lichten records that after the War was over it was determined that only 8,000 Jews were taken from Italy by the Nazis[16 (http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp#F16)] —far less than in other European countries. In June,1944, Pius XII sent a telegram to Admiral Miklos Horthy, the ruler of Hungary, and was able to halt the planned deportation of 800,000 Jews from that country.

....

Rabbi Safran of Bucharest, Romania, sent a note of thanks to the papal nuncio on April 7, 1944: "It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews. . . . The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance."[18 (http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp#F18)]

The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, also made a statement of thanks: "What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts. . . . Priests and even high prelates did things that will forever be an honor to Catholicism."[

....

In Three Popes and the Jews Lapide estimated the total number of Jews that had been spared as a result of Pius XII’s throwing the Church’s weight into the clandestine struggle to save them. After totaling the numbers of Jews saved in different areas and deducting the numbers saved by other causes, such as the praiseworthy efforts of some European Protestants, "The final number of Jewish lives in whose rescue the Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to . . . 860,000."[21 (http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp#F21)] This is a total larger than all other Jewish relief organizations in Europe, combined, were able to save. Lapide calculated that Pius XII and the Church he headed constituted the most successful Jewish aid organization in all of Europe during the war, dwarfing the Red Cross and all other aid societies.

...

"We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. . . . During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people passed through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims" (Golda Meir, Israeli representative to the U.N. and future prime minister of Israel).

"With special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods in their entire history” (Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress).

"More than anyone else, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the great kindness, filled with compassion and magnanimity, that the Pope displayed during the terrible years of persecution and terror" (Elio Toaff, Chief Rabbi of Rome, following Rabbi Zolli’s conversion).

Rich Jones
03-03-2011, 08:40 AM
The Pope wasn't "forgiving" anyone. I believe his statement was that the general Jewish population of that period are not to be held accountable for the death of Christ. Rather, it was a few leaders of the Temple and their supporters( he didn't address his feelings for those folk). No reason to forgive those who have not committed an offense.

In modern America, there are those who hold the entire Islam faith accountable for the actions of a few crazies. Same sort of thing.

GregH, Those who use only reason to get thru life can't begin to understand religion(and nobody can or ever will fully understand God while here on Earth). Faith has little to do with reason and logic. Look at the infinity of outer space. It's there and we know it, yet who can possibly begin to grasp outer space as going on for ever and ever? You just can't wrap your head around it. Reason and logic start to take a holiday. Faith in God is sort of the same. It's something some of us feel and know is there, but can't even begin to understand it. In the prayer book of my church (Episcopal) there's a prayer that starts, "May the Peace (knowledge) of God, which passes all human understanding...). That's the starting point of Faith.

Gerarddm
03-03-2011, 09:03 AM
Faith in God is sort of the same. It's something some of us feel and know is there, but can't even begin to understand it

To quote an old Linda Lewis song: " I don't know the meaning, I just feel the feeling". If it works for believers, good on them, mate.

pefjr
03-03-2011, 12:00 PM
peb, your post looks like a guilt trip.

80 generations have passed by, and Jewish populations have grown to 15 million. 15 million were forgiven for being of the Jewish connection to the few supposedly guilty that were never punished. Forgiveness is a growing catholic tradition. And the pope thinks he has the power to sweep it out of history with an official exoneration? Well why not, the catholics were the ones that wrote the fiction into the history books, so I guess they can continue the drama and get credit for forgiveness at the same time. BTW, didn't a couple previous popes do this same act? Familiar acts like this will not take the heat off the internal problems.

GregH
03-03-2011, 12:13 PM
Richard Jones- Please read my post again. Do you anywhere see the word "God"? I was speaking of religion- something quite different.

peb
03-03-2011, 12:18 PM
Richard Jones- Please read my post again. Do you anywhere see the word "God"? I was speaking of religion- something quite different.

So you are saying one can take God seriously, but not take any religion seriously? If someone believes in a God, of any sort, he has a religious belief by definition. He is a member of a religion, even if he is the sole member of that given religion. God and religion go hand-in-hand in our vocabulary.

peb
03-03-2011, 12:20 PM
peb, your post looks like a guilt trip.

80 generations have passed by, and Jewish populations have grown to 15 million. 15 million were forgiven for being of the Jewish connection to the few supposedly guilty that were never punished. Forgiveness is a growing catholic tradition. And the pope thinks he has the power to sweep it out of history with an official exoneration? Well why not, the catholics were the ones that wrote the fiction into the history books, so I guess they can continue the drama and get credit for forgiveness at the same time. BTW, didn't a couple previous popes do this same act? Familiar acts like this will not take the heat off the internal problems.

Defense against slander is not a guilt trip. Does anyone who tries to defend himself against unjust accusations automatically get assigned guilt because of the defense? That's a pretty backward, archaic concept. As the second paragraph, you haven't read the pope's comments and have very little understanding what he was saying.

pefjr
03-03-2011, 12:34 PM
Defense against slander is not a guilt trip. Does anyone who tries to defend himself against unjust accusations automatically get assigned guilt because of the defense? That's a pretty backward, archaic concept. As the second paragraph, you haven't read the pope's comments and have very little understanding what he was saying.I think the pope has little understanding of what he is saying, and has no consideration of true history. He is again using the Jews as a tool to further the catholic's religious/political agenda. The Jews need no forgiveness from other's ignorance of non-fictional history.

peb
03-03-2011, 12:39 PM
I think the pope has little understanding of what he is saying, and has no consideration of true history. He is again using the Jews as a tool to further the catholic's religious/political agenda. The Jews need no forgiveness from other's ignorance of non-fictional history.

You have no idea of the intellectual capabilities of the man who you accuse of having little knowledge of history. On top of that, the Pope is not offereing or saying the Jews need forgiveness. Your statement to the contrary only shows your ignorance and lack of investigation of the subject matter at hand.

pefjr
03-03-2011, 12:43 PM
You have no idea of the intellectual capabilities of the man who you accuse of having little knowledge of history. On top of that, the Pope is not offereing or saying the Jews need forgiveness. Your statement to the contrary only shows your ignorance and lack of investigation of the subject matter at hand.This is what I said, I will repeat it for you peb, real slow now,"I think the pope has little understanding of what he is saying, and has no consideration of true history". He has the knowledge I am sure, but the knowledge will not fit the religion.

peb
03-03-2011, 12:49 PM
No consideration of true history, would seem to imply no knowledge of history. Sorry, for the misunderstanding. But if you are going to be that pedantic (and to keep it simple for you, we will stick to the yahoo title) would you care to clarify how you equate the word exonerate with the word "forgiveness"? Don't accuse me of manipulating your words, when you manipulate the article at hand for your own purpose.

pefjr
03-03-2011, 12:52 PM
forgive (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forgive) Part of Speech: verb Definition: stop blame and grant pardon Synonyms: absolve (http://thesaurus.com/browse/absolve), accept apology, acquit, allow for, amnesty, bear no malice, bear with, bury the hatchet, clear (http://thesaurus.com/browse/clear), commute, condone (http://thesaurus.com/browse/condone), dismiss from mind, efface, exculpate (http://thesaurus.com/browse/exculpate), excuse (http://thesaurus.com/browse/excuse), exempt (http://thesaurus.com/browse/exempt), exonerate (http://thesaurus.com/browse/exonerate), extenuate, forget (http://thesaurus.com/browse/forget), kiss and make up, laugh off, let bygones be bygones, let it go, let off easy, let off, let pass, let up on, make allowance, overlook (http://thesaurus.com/browse/overlook), palliate, pocket, purge (http://thesaurus.com/browse/purge), release (http://thesaurus.com/browse/release), relent, remit (http://thesaurus.com/browse/remit), reprieve (http://thesaurus.com/browse/reprieve), respite (http://thesaurus.com/browse/respite), spring (http://thesaurus.com/browse/spring), think no more of, turn other cheek, wink at, wipe slate clean Antonyms: accuse (http://thesaurus.com/browse/accuse), blame (http://thesaurus.com/browse/blame), censure (http://thesaurus.com/browse/censure), charge (http://thesaurus.com/browse/charge), punish (http://thesaurus.com/browse/punish)

peb
03-03-2011, 01:13 PM
Exonerate
1. to clear, as of an accusation; free (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free) from guilt or blame; exculpate: He was exonerated from the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) accusation of cheating.
2. to relieve, as from an obligation, duty, or task

Someone is accused falsely, exoneration is not forgiveness, it is acknowledgement that the accusation is wrong. Listing of words from a thesaurus are not meant to find synonyms, but to find better fitting words/phrases.

Ian McColgin
03-03-2011, 01:25 PM
It's good that people have made the distinction between exonerate, which is what the Pope did, and forgive which the thread opener so butchered in what can only be seen as both anti-Roman Catholic and anti-semitic idiocy, or perhaps as a very bad attempt at satire.

While the Roman Catholic Church has taught for fifty years or so that the Jews did not kill the Christ and various popes have repeated the teaching from time to time, this announcement is newsworthy. The Pope, sounding almost Protestant in his reasoning, grounded this teaching on sound biblical and theological scholarship and displayed the teaching in terms of that scholarship. It's most unusual for the Pope to make a teaching so much more than just naked conclusion.

peb
03-03-2011, 01:38 PM
It's good that people have made the distinction between exonerate, which is what the Pope did, and forgive which the thread opener so butchered in what can only be seen as both anti-Roman Catholic and anti-semitic idiocy, or perhaps as a very bad attempt at satire.

While the Roman Catholic Church has taught for fifty years or so that the Jews did not kill the Christ and various popes have repeated the teaching from time to time, this announcement is newsworthy. The Pope, sounding almost Protestant in his reasoning, grounded this teaching on sound biblical and theological scholarship and displayed the teaching in terms of that scholarship. It's most unusual for the Pope to make a teaching so much more than just naked conclusion.

Thanks for your post. I appreciate the first paragraph, but I have to take a small exception to the second. The Roman Catholic Church, in its official teaching, has taught a lot longer than that that the Jews did not kill Christ, or your statment that the church has had a "naked conclusion", void of sound biblical or theological scholarship.

From the Council of Trent:

Besides, to increase the dignity of this mystery, Christ not only suffered for sinners, but even for those who were the very authors and ministers of all the torments He endured. Of this the Apostle reminds us in these words addressed to the Hebrews: Think diligently upon him that endured such opposition from sinners against himself; that you be not wearied, fainting in your minds. In this guilt are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.

....
Furthermore men of all ranks and conditions were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. Gentiles and Jews were the advisers, the authors, the ministers of His Passion: Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him, all the rest deserted Him.

....

pefjr
03-03-2011, 01:46 PM
Exonerate
1. to clear, as of an accusation; free (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free) from guilt or blame; exculpate: He was exonerated from the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) accusation of cheating.
2. to relieve, as from an obligation, duty, or task

Someone is accused falsely, exoneration is not forgiveness, it is acknowledgement that the accusation is wrong. Listing of words from a thesaurus are not meant to find synonyms, but to find better fitting words/phrases.Use the word you want peb, makes no difference to me. The point is, true History makes no charge against Jews, and never has. The fiction lives in the christian religions and the pope is using this without a dilemma within his conscious, even with the true knowledge of History you think he has. Question: assuming for a question only that these popes have any power to exonerate anyway, if previous popes, 2 I think, have exonerated Jews, why the need now? Is this a generational thing, to forgive the newly born guilty Jews since the last exoneration?
And speaking of words and definitions, I am trying to find one that describes how phony, and ridiculous this pope and this act ...........

George Jung
03-03-2011, 01:56 PM
Some things need repeating, perhaps generationally. My understanding is that the Jews were never 'blamed' for Christs' death (you do recall it was predicted, right?), but folks have a tendency to come to their own conclusions/biases, and education is an ongoing challenge.

How's that?

Waddie
03-03-2011, 02:18 PM
Why would those who reject organized religion even care what the Pope says or anything related to organized religion?
His comments are only relevant to his audience and to those people (in their millions) his comments carry weight.
Isn't true freedom the right to believe or not to believe as each sees fit? Why criticize the beliefs or non-beliefs of others? Even those that do support an organized religion. What ever happened to the idea of respect for others? It's not mandatory to offer an opinion on every subject.

regards,
Waddie

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-03-2011, 03:25 PM
This is the most blatantly antisemetic comment I've ever seen in the forum. I don't know how to get a thread pulled and someone banned, but this is just obscene, and the OP should go.

Norm

I too am outraged! Off with his head!

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-03-2011, 03:28 PM
I just don't see how any reasonably intelligent person can take religion in general, but particularly the Catholic religion seriously. If it didn't adversely affect so many people, it would be comical with all it's pomposity and over-the-top self-importance.

This is the most blatantly anti-Catholic comment I've ever seen on this forum. I don't know how to get a thread pulled and someone banned, but this is just obscene, and GregH should go.

Sincerely,
A totally unbiased forumite who possesses a working sense of humor.

Osborne Russell
03-03-2011, 03:29 PM
His comments are only relevant to his audience . . .

If only. Read much history?

Allison
03-03-2011, 04:11 PM
The Vatican was one of the few international organizations which systematically tried to save as many Jews as possible in WWII. It did more, with less resources to combat the killing of Jews than any country.

Peb, I don't think Pius is as well regarded in the Holocaust Museum as he is by the Vatican over his role in the deportation of italian Jews and his failure to condemnHitler's policies of extermination!

Waddie
03-03-2011, 06:31 PM
If only. Read much history?

Osborne, I would agree with you if the year were 1095 AD. (see, I do read history! :) ). The present Pope is more of a figure head, like the Queen of England. American Catholics, at least, are famous for disregarding the pronouncements of the Pope. Most of the Catholics I know think for themselves, and when the Pope says something they personally agree with, they're all for him, but if he says something they disagree with he gets criticism. Matter of fact, we treat most of our leaders that way, not just the Pope. Difference is, those other leaders get to pass laws, the Pope has no real power. So he simply uses his bully pulpit to offer pronouncements with no power behind them, mostly for the ears of the faithful (his audience) who ignore him at will.

regards,
Waddie

pefjr
03-03-2011, 06:35 PM
Some things need repeating, perhaps generationally. My understanding is that the Jews were never 'blamed' for Christs' death (you do recall it was predicted, right?), but folks have a tendency to come to their own conclusions/biases, and education is an ongoing challenge.

How's that?Not bad, I see your point, but IMO, it's not the flock that needs educating as much as it is the leadership. I talk to catholics all the time and have not meet very many in the last 20 years that are not embarrassed by their leadership, and particularly this pope and his acts. I know several that have gone Lutheran in the last 8 yrs and are much happier. Interesting that the church would place one man in a position of total authority with no provision for removing him under any condition. Only world public opinion has any effect on this man.

Waddie
03-03-2011, 06:49 PM
Only world public opinion has any effect on this man.

Somehow I don't think "world opinion" has much influence on the Pope. His opinions are probably influenced more by doctrine, (in his opinion) divinely inspired.

regards,
Waddie

brad9798
03-03-2011, 08:14 PM
Just an observation, but - for a bunch of self-described atheists, you all certainly spend a lot of time reading about the RCC, and thinking about it, as well.

Maybe you need some new hobbies! You don't really seem to be enjoying this one.

'Bout sums it up for me, Georg Jung!

[remember ... no one here watches TV ... or shops at Walmart, either!!!!] :D

ishmael
03-03-2011, 09:05 PM
The story, and I've been reading it lately, atributes the crucifixion to the higher levels of the Jewish temple. They were not allowed, by their law, to put a man to death, so they appealed to the Roman authority under Pilate. Pilate says, several times, I find no fault in this man, yet the Jewish authorities, because Jesus had challenged them, are intent on his death.

The story has nothing to do with the Joe and Jane Jew going about their business under Roman rule. It has to do with power. It's certainly right to exonerate Jews as the instrument of Jesus being crucified. Many Jews thought him a holy man, worthy of honor. It was the temple elite who wanted him gone precisely because he was a holy man, who challenged their authority. Typical, amongst some, to retain power.

Bob Cleek
03-03-2011, 10:05 PM
Interesting that the church would place one man in a position of total authority with no provision for removing him under any condition. Only world public opinion has any effect on this man.

I'd bet money world opinion has NO effect on that man. Not a smidgen. (The opinions of many Catholics certainly don't!) And... there is, or at least was, provision for removing a pope back in the day. The Borgias raised it to a high art with their poison rings and such, or so it's said. Seriously, though, if one posits that the Church, which means the Catholic people of the world, are led by God, the Pope, as they say, "answers to a higher order."

I'm always fascinated by how the anti-Catholic crowd, which is always so critical of the Pope for being so "powerful," gives him so much more "power" that he has. Without a doubt, the bigots are so wrapped up in their beliefs that they invent reality to justify them.

Ratzinger, the present pope, wrote a book. It is the latest volume in a series he began writing long before he was elected pope. While many may take whatever he writes as particularly worthy of consideration based on his present office, the fact is that it is just a book and he is just an author. It is not any sort of pronouncement of Church doctrine. It has NOTHING to do with papal "infallibility" on "matters of faith and doctrine." It is just a book, no more authoritative than some book a US president or other leader may have written at one time or another. He did not write it officially as "pope," he wrote it as "Ratzinger," as he has all his other books.

That said, Joseph Ratzinger is, and has long been, one of the leading theologians of our age, not that everybody agrees with him. There are many trends and "schools of thought" among theologians and sometimes much discourse and controvery regarding what one or the other might propound, just as some theoretical physicists may agree with Stephen Hawkings and others not. He is, however, generally acknowledged as one of the best philosophical and theological intellects and writers of our times. Whether one agrees with him or not, his writing exposes the thought processes of an incredibly deep and perceptive mind. When one reads his works, even where you may not agree with him, you find yourself understanding completely why he maintains whatever position he does. I have never found anything doctrinaire or judgmental in his writings. The fact that he has published another volume of his series is welcome news within his field. That he repeats an utterly uncontroversial and long recognized fact regarding the death of Christ is not news at all.

"The Jews" didn't "kill Christ." It was Jews who built the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ is STILL a Jew. Anti-semitism and anti-Catholicism are one in the same. They seem to go in and out of fashion cyclically. It isn't politically correct to diss the Jews these days, so those who fear faith seem to have directed their venom towards Catholics and religion in general. Given enough time, it will be the Jews' turn again, no doubt. It's not about "religion," it's always about those who stand on principles and those who can't stand principles. If one really has no faith in God, religion should cause them no more concern than would a kid believing in Santa Claus. Perhaps it is because they are not so sure about their own beliefs that they seem so driven to convince others to agree with them.

Nanoose
03-03-2011, 10:07 PM
They were not allowed, by their law, to put a man to death...

But wasn't stoning the sentence for blasphemy?

ishmael
03-03-2011, 10:26 PM
But wasn't stoning the sentence for blasphemy?

Yes, I think that's right. A way to circumvent direct execution by edict of the court?

Primitive as hell, and very tribal.

I very much want to uphold our modern courts system. People forget how fragile it is. The various accusation become some 'truth', and there is no ceremony of innocence.

I don't know how our courts should be reformed, but I lean, always, toward giving the benefit of the doubt, listening to innocecent until proven guilty. It lets some rascals escape, but that's a small price.

Waddie
03-03-2011, 10:30 PM
Bob Cleek, Very well written addition to this thread. I wonder sometimes where all the criticism of this Pope comes from, especially from non-Catholics, and non-believers in general. My personal belief is that, if there is a God, he may have revealed himself to different cultures in different ways. The major religions have a lot more in common then they do differences. The problem with religion is that each one believes theirs is the only true way to believe, and they're often willing to kill others to make that point. This Pope seems to be a good person and a deep thinker, at least as you described. We could use a few more deep thinkers in this world. :)

regards,
Waddie

B_B
03-03-2011, 11:19 PM
If one really has no faith in God, religion should cause them no more concern than would a kid believing in Santa Claus. Perhaps it is because they are not so sure about their own beliefs that they seem so driven to convince others to agree with them.
Yep, it's them Agnostics and Atheists who burned heretics at the stake, who kill apostates, who populate the AM dial with promises of eternal salvation and/or damnation (please include a little gift for the messenger), who've built churches all over the world and send missionaries out to the farthest reaches.

Your, and Sammy's, ability to twist religion, of the Roman variety, away from it's basic narcissism and antagonistic reality is admirable.

pefjr
03-03-2011, 11:20 PM
I'm always fascinated by how the anti-Catholic crowd, which is always so critical of the Pope for being so "powerful," gives him so much more "power" that he has. Without a doubt, the bigots are so wrapped up in their beliefs that they invent reality to justify them.



Joseph Ratzinger is, and has long been, one of the leading theologians of our age, not that everybody agrees with him. There are many trends and "schools of thought" among theologians and sometimes much discourse and controvery regarding what one or the other might propound, just as some theoretical physicists may agree with Stephen Hawkings and others not. He is, however, generally acknowledged as one of the best philosophical and theological intellects and writers of our times. Whether one agrees with him or not, his writing exposes the thought processes of an incredibly deep and perceptive mind. When one reads his works, even where you may not agree with him, you find yourself understanding completely why he maintains whatever position he does. I have never found anything doctrinaire or judgmental in his writings. The fact that he has published another volume of his series is welcome news within his field. That he repeats an utterly uncontroversial and long recognized fact regarding the death of Christ is not news at all.
If one really has no faith in God, religion should cause them no more concern than would a kid believing in Santa Claus. Perhaps it is because they are not so sure about their own beliefs that they seem so driven to convince others to agree with them.
Bob, I might have to consider you naive as you live in a religion world, in a dominantly christian country and you have no idea why a Atheist would follow the happenings in the world's largest christian religion? I don't want to start to list the reasons why, it would too long, but doubts of Atheism is not one of them.
That he repeats an utterly uncontroversial and long recognized fact regarding the death of Christ is not news at all.fact? You must have a unique definition of fact. And it was news, Headline news. The man does attract attention. I can't share your admiration either for his intellect, he hasn't shown any.
I'm always fascinated by how the anti-Catholic crowd, which is always so critical of the Pope for being so "powerful," gives him so much more "power" that he has. Without a doubt, the bigots are so wrapped up in their beliefs that they invent reality to justify them.BobWow, bigots inventing their own world to satisfy their beliefs? sure sounds familiar, where have I seen that occurring?

Keith Wilson
03-03-2011, 11:23 PM
I can think of a lot of points on which I disagree with the old fellow, but this surely is not one of them. You'd think folks would be a little more ready to give him credit when get gets it right.

George Jung
03-03-2011, 11:57 PM
I would suggest most of us - myself included - do not 'know' the Pope, or have any appreciation for what his intellectual capacity might be. Taking our cues from the sound bites that pass for 'news' in todays newspapers, or the five minute 'stories' on CNN, well..... it seems obvious that 'exposure' is going to be miserably limited and inadequate, and more likely to convey exactly the opposite of what an in-depth story might express. Folks much more scholarly than us, who follow this literature and theology, uniformly admire the Popes intellect and scholarship, our first clue.

skuthorp
03-04-2011, 12:02 AM
I am prepared to cut him some slack too considering the time passed, but Rome generally admits fault only in the interest of the preservation of the church. I am prepared to be convinced of Pius's activites against the Nazi's, but he ceretainly hasn't had a good press in the past.

Chip-skiff
03-04-2011, 12:14 AM
Right— so do the Jews now forgive the Catholic Church for the lengthy and vicious persecution?

Does he think he can wiggle his pale finger, glittering with jewelled rings, and cancel out what's happened?

Barking mad, I reckon.

Anthony Zucker
03-04-2011, 05:52 AM
As the forum Jew, let me say that Benedict's book may be the beginning of a big deal.

Ever since the third century when the emperor Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity and made the Jews the scapegoats for the death of Christ to take the onus off the Romans soldiers and Pilate who obviously did the deed, the Church has kept blaming jews.

As a Jew I have alway thought it curious that no one ever asks, "what would have happened if they hadnt crusified him?" The whole cross symbolism would never have come up. European architecture would never be the same.

If Benedict follows thru and has the easter mass changed (it still says "He lived among them and they crusified him" and other anti-jewish comments) he may help move the church away from an embarrasing era.

As for peb's c&p defending Pius XII: If Pius was really opposed to Hitler & co., why didnt he state out loud that the invasion of Poland was wrong, the invasion of France, Holland and the rest of them was wrong, and the slaughter of the jews was wrong? Instead we have most of the Jews of Rome, right under his window, taken away and not a peep from him. A few priests, one American Jesuit in Rome in particular, saved a bunch. Throughout Europe individual priests and nuns did great work saving jews and particularly jewish children, hiding them in orphanages and accounting for them after the war. They were real saints and deserve the honor, not him. PiusXI was active is fighting Hitler but he died and PiusXII stopped Pius XI's efforts. But Pius XII was busy saving people after the war. He oversaw the Ratline which saved Eichman, Megeles and all the nazi bigwigs on their way to Argentina.

Peb, read "Hitler's Pope"(wherein P XII is the papal rep in Germany and signs the Concordante with Hitler, taking away the power of the rather liberal Catholic political party and agreeing that Hitler had the right to make and enforce racial laws) and the book on Eichman's trial in Israel-Eichman talked about the Franciscans hiding him in Yugoslavia, secreting him to Rome where the vatican gave him papers with a new name and money so he could get a boat to Argentina.

Allison
03-04-2011, 06:01 AM
Anthony, Peb and that lot don't want to hear the uncomfortable truth about PiusXII, they are ghoing to make him a saint. he's one of ratzinger's heroes! which should explain a lot about ratzinger!!

skuthorp
03-04-2011, 06:01 AM
PiusXII was about saving the Vatican from being sacked, about preserving the Church, taking the long view if you will. You may not like it, I may not like it but it's none of my business, it may not be very 'christian' but arguably that is the Popes job. The present one is just doing the same job, fighting a reargard action and ensuring the Churches survival.

ishmael
03-04-2011, 06:38 AM
Were there dirty dealings: to get people like Eichman out of the line of fire? No doubt.

The question, to me, is how did all this happen? As a Jew by birth, I don't understand how it happened.

There is a demonic presence in Hitler and his minions. He was jealous--probably a Jew himself--and he found a lightning rod for his unrequited religious yearnings. That's the nearest I can figure. Combine that with a pagan desire for purity in the Volk and you have a recipe for this disaster.

I want to re-iterate that the common image of Jews being rounded up, herded into gas chambers and then incinerated, is one small part of the Third Reich. It's a horrible thing, which did happen, but it's a small part which is way too often overplayed. The Nazis weren't stupid. Many of the millions who died were worked to death at slave labor.

Anthony Zucker
03-04-2011, 06:50 AM
Ish, please, if nothing else, please believe me, Hitler was not Jewish, he was raised Roman Catholic as were his parents.

Yes, the holaucust was just part of the Third Reich. Best evidence of that is when they wanted to test the first gas chamber the germans put a couple hundred russian pows into the chamber and gassed them.

Anthony Zucker
03-04-2011, 06:59 AM
Thank you, Allisn, but I am hoping that given his background the Rat might be the one to let the light in.

Similar to Nixon being able to make the opening to China, and Begin and Sadat being able to bridge their gap. Nixon would have berated Kennedy as a commie sympathyzer if he had tried it and Begin would have gone bezerk if BenGurion had made peace with Egypt.

Waddie
03-04-2011, 07:04 AM
I don't have time to research it right now, but I think there's a good case for Hitler being part Jewish. I believe his father was born out of wedlock while his mother ( Hitler's grandmother) worked as a maid in a Jewish household, and the story is that the baby was sired by a grown Jewish son at the residence.

Of course, Jew-hating has been a European characteristic since the Middle Ages. Hitler didn't invent that, he just capitalized on it.

regards,
Waddie

Allison
03-04-2011, 07:10 AM
Thank you, Allisn, but I am hoping that given his background the Rat might be the one to let the light in.

Similar to Nixon being able to make the opening to China, and Begin and Sadat being able to bridge their gap. Nixon would have berated Kennedy as a commie sympathyzer if he had tried it and Begin would have gone bezerk if BenGurion had made peace with Egypt.

Anthony, I wouldn't hold my breath on it. I think it's window dressing to try and appear more liberal and to distract people from all the other garbage that si coming home to roost.
it also smacks of appeasement, he hopes to try and defuse some of the anti Piu XII sentiment for his total failure to do anything positive in WWII, especially with regard to the Jewish people! pius is a personal hero of his and he really wants him made a saint!
A cynical ploy more than anything else I think.

peb
03-04-2011, 10:32 AM
"I would now argue, in the light of the debates and evidence following 'Hitler's Pope', that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans"

"While I believe with many commentators that the pope might have done more to help the plight of the Jews, I now feel, 10 years after the publication of my book, that his scope for action was severely limited and I am prepared to state this.... Nevertheless, due to his ineffectual and diplomatic language in respect of the Nazis and the Jews, I still believe that it was incumbent on him to explain his failure to speak out after the war. This he never did"

About as close as an author will ever come to repudiating his own work. I doubt I will take the time reading a book even the author doesn't completely agree with.

ishmael
03-04-2011, 10:48 AM
Just a note. Judaism is established by matrilineal decent.

I grew up nominally Protestant, and only found out later that my mother's mother was a Jew, who passed. That makes me a Jew, by the laws of our past.

It may seem a bit quaint, yet I've found it pretty true. Which begs the question, are there things characteristic of Jews? I think there are, and I like them. Hard working, smart, a bit clanish, but open to new ideas. It's absolutely racist on its face, but I think it's true.

While you're apoplectic about this, please pass the baba ganoush.

pefjr
03-04-2011, 11:41 AM
Just a note. Judaism is established by matrilineal decent.

I grew up nominally Protestant, and only found out later that my mother's mother was a Jew, who passed. That makes me a Jew, by the laws of our past.

It may seem a bit quaint, yet I've found it pretty true. Which begs the question, are there things characteristic of Jews? I think there are, and I like them. Hard working, smart, a bit clanish, but open to new ideas. It's absolutely racist on its face, but I think it's true.

While you're apoplectic about this, please pass the baba ganoush.Jewish history is over 4000 yrs. Odds are many females married outside the clan and they or their female offspring wandered away from the group entirely and multiplied through 160 + generations. Wonder how many unknown jews are in the population today? Sorta silly tribal nonsense.

Peerie Maa
03-04-2011, 11:47 AM
Jewish history is over 4000 yrs. Odds are many females married outside the clan and they or their female offspring wandered away from the group entirely and multiplied through 160 + generations. Wonder how many unknown jews are in the population today? Sorta silly tribal nonsense.

Take that fact and the rise in amateur genealogy prompted by the internet, and you realise that the Nazi's policies on antisemitism and the "Pure Aryan Race" would not be possible today.

Anthony Zucker
03-04-2011, 01:26 PM
PM;

Actually modern genealogy might make the nazi's task easier. IIRC, They adapted the Jesuists's 1/32 rule; that is a candidate for their order had to show their background was non Jewish only thru their great great grandparents.

Peerie Maa
03-04-2011, 01:32 PM
PM;

Actually modern genealogy might make the nazi's task easier. IIRC, They adapted the Jesuists's 1/32 rule; that is a candidate for their order had to show their background was non Jewish only thru their great great grandparents.

Mix in all of the other "sub humans" - Poles, Gypsies, et all and try to prove racial purity. They were equal opportunity haters.

Nanoose
03-04-2011, 05:02 PM
I don't have time to research it right now, but I think there's a good case for Hitler being part Jewish. I believe his father was born out of wedlock while his mother ( Hitler's grandmother) worked as a maid in a Jewish household, and the story is that the baby was sired by a grown Jewish son at the residence.

Of course, Jew-hating has been a European characteristic since the Middle Ages. Hitler didn't invent that, he just capitalized on it.

regards,
Waddie

My understanding is the the Jewish line passes through the mother, but I could have that wrong.

Waddie
03-04-2011, 05:19 PM
You may be correct about the Jewish line being matrilineal. However, I don't think the Nazi's saw it that way. I'm sure they used the one drop rule. If you had any Jewish blood you were a Jew. Maybe they only checked back two generations, but if Jewish blood could be proven anywhere in you lineage no matter how far back you were a Jew.

The Nazi's didn't invent the idea of sub-races either (Poles, Gypsies, etc.,), once again they just capitalized on the popular crock science popular at that time. There were also several mainstream, well known writers and scientists of the time lamenting that the human race was being ruined by indiscriminate breeding with inferior peoples. This played right into the hands of the Nazi's.

regards,
Waddie

Bob Cleek
03-04-2011, 06:30 PM
Yep, it's them Agnostics and Atheists who burned heretics at the stake, who kill apostates, who populate the AM dial with promises of eternal salvation and/or damnation (please include a little gift for the messenger), who've built churches all over the world and send missionaries out to the farthest reaches.

I never said "them Agnostics and Atheists" had an exclusive franchise on ignorance, bigotry and mayhem. It's endemic to the human race, and religion, at its best, serves to counterbalance our baser instincts. Hopefully, mankind learns as time goes on and becomes a bit more civilized over the course of history. An example of wrongdoing in the name of religion in the fifteenth and sixteenth century surely doesn't justify the sort of ignorance spewed by so many in the twenty-first. And, lest we forget, the excesses of the atheistic "Enlightenment," such as wrought the aftermath of the French Revolution, were every bit as terrible as the excesses of the religious "Unenlightenment" that preceeded it.

Bob Cleek
03-04-2011, 06:37 PM
... And it was news, Headline news. The man does attract attention. I can't share your admiration either for his intellect, he hasn't shown any.

I always wondered who bought those supermarket checkstand tabloids: "Woman raped by zoo gorilla gives birth to chimp!"

Really, now, be honest... What have you read of his written works? If all you know is what you read in the "headlines," you really haven't got any standing to comment on anybody's intellect. You're just a kid calling names on the school yard. The more you say, the more you reveal of yourself.

Allison
03-04-2011, 06:44 PM
I still believe that it was incumbent on him to explain his failure to speak out after the war. This he never did"

Only a total apologist could distort this into a repudiation!!
Get real Peb!

ishmael
03-04-2011, 06:45 PM
The notion that someone of different heritage is inferior isn't Jewish, near as I can figure. Jews suffer the same prejudices as all of us, but having been the object of unreasoned hatred, always, they are some of the first to ask for equality in our social fabric.

That said, I dated a woman who was Jewish. She asked me to worship at her temple and I didn't feel all that welcomed. To be honest I felt a bit of an intruder. The rabbi was imperious, essentially asked me what I was doing there. Your won't find that in most Christian churches.

Bob Cleek
03-04-2011, 06:59 PM
PM;

Actually modern genealogy might make the nazi's task easier. IIRC, They adapted the Jesuists's 1/32 rule; that is a candidate for their order had to show their background was non Jewish only thru their great great grandparents.

Your reference to the "1/32 rule" illustrates the sad fact that such bigotry, inherent in the human beast, pollutes wherever it finds an opening. It is, however, not a religious phenomenon, but a political one. Wherever we find religion going astray, it is always the result of temporal influences. The Jesuits, who some scholoars believe were actually founded by crypto-Jews and were openly welcoming of Jewish members in their early history, openly challenging the Spanish Inquisition (NOT a religious inquisition, but a political one) took a turn for the worst in that regard when overwhelmed by the ill temper of the times. https://sites.google.com/a/jewishjesuits.com/www/briefhistoricalsetting

Bob Cleek
03-04-2011, 07:11 PM
The Nazi's didn't invent the idea of sub-races either (Poles, Gypsies, etc.,), once again they just capitalized on the popular crock science popular at that time. There were also several mainstream, well known writers and scientists of the time lamenting that the human race was being ruined by indiscriminate breeding with inferior peoples. This played right into the hands of the Nazi's.

Indeed, among these was the guiding light of the "abortion on demand" movement, Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger:

In A Plan for Peace (1932), for example, Sanger proposed a congressional department to:

"Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924."

And, following:

"Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

So much for a "woman's right to choose!"

Keith Wilson
03-04-2011, 07:22 PM
Bob, you know very well that support for eugenics was pretty general in the 1920s; it was not a controversial or unusual position at all back then. This is a case of criticizing someone from the past for not holding current ideas. It's a very cheap tactic to attack Ms. Sanger for her positions on eugenics, when the actual reason for the hostility is that she did more than any other person to make birth control universally available, and abortion legal. This kind of thing is Sam's stock in trade, and even peb does it occasionally, but I expected better from you.

Allison
03-04-2011, 07:24 PM
Pretty desperate going back to 1932 for a quote but I guess that was only a few years before the Rat's great hero, the future Pius XII, was the papal legate in germany who supported their racial purity laws!

pefjr
03-04-2011, 07:44 PM
The more you say, the more you reveal of yourself. I am an open book Bob. Nothing to hide here, no shame, including the source of the thread(Ass. Press), which you must have mistaken for a tabloid. I have read nothing written by this pope except as you say "headline stories". I am just not interested in a pope or his writings. All my studies and conclusions were done 40 years ago. No religion is much different than 1970's basically. If I was forced to read it, I do know enough that I would consider the source foundation as faulty and discredit the rest. I could give you some true history sources to read to balance out that fiction if you are interested. BTW, my comment on the pope's intellect was only that I did not share your admiration, which only means I am not interested and is not a knowledgeable comment of his intellect. It's just that by his acts while pope, he has not shown me anything but the opposite of superior intellect. For instance his views on abortion are not what I would call intellectual. His views on homosexuality are plain ignorant of biology. There is more but you get the point.|:)

Lew Barrett
03-04-2011, 08:14 PM
I don't have time to research it right now, but I think there's a good case for Hitler being part Jewish. I believe his father was born out of wedlock while his mother ( Hitler's grandmother) worked as a maid in a Jewish household, and the story is that the baby was sired by a grown Jewish son at the residence.

Of course, Jew-hating has been a European characteristic since the Middle Ages. Hitler didn't invent that, he just capitalized on it.

regards,
Waddie

The story is a well known fiction that persists to this day. It takes no time to do the research on the web now, so I won't cite it for you either but the bottom line is that even the myth that Hitler's GM worked in a Jewish house in Graz is a fiction. There was enough top hide in the Hitler family background that it suited Der Fuhrer to be secretive about it. If you need cites, they are abundantly available.

Waddie
03-04-2011, 09:42 PM
LONDON: Nazi leader Adolf Hitler possibly had Jewish as well as African ancestors - communities whom he had pledged to exterminate, new DNA tests have revealed.

Daily Express on Tuesday reported that samples taken from Hitler's relatives link him to both the *Jewish community and people from North Africa.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a journalist, was able to investigate Hitler's DNA after he managed to lay his hands on a serviette dropped by the dictator's great-nephew Alexander Stuart-Houston who lives in New York. A serviette is a small square of cloth or paper used while eating to protect the clothes, wipe the mouth and hand.

He got a second sample from an Austrian cousin of Hitler, a farmer known as Norbert H, the media report said.

The DNA tests threw up a startling result.

It revealed a form of the Y-chromosome that is rare in Germany and the rest of Western Europe, but common among Jewish and North African groups.

Experts now think that Hitler had migrant relatives who settled in his homeland.

Mulders said both the test samples had a form of genetic material known as Haplopgroup E1b1b, proving an "irrefutable link" to the Nazi leader.

"It is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, in Algeria, Libya and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised," the Belgian journalist was quoted as saying.

Ronny Decorte, a genetic specialist in Belgium, said: "Hitler would not have been pleased about this.

"Race and blood was central in the world of the Nazis. Hitler's concern over his descent was not unjustified. He was apparently not 'pure' or 'Aryan'."

Lew,
You might be right about Hitler having no Jewish blood, but the issue is far from settled. :)

regards,
Waddie

CWSmith
03-04-2011, 10:08 PM
Getting back to the original subject:

There are still subcultures of "conservative" Christians who blame the Jewish race for what is taught in the New Testiment to be a willing sacrifice for the sins of all. I don't understand it. I thought that nonsense was laid to rest centuries ago, but bad theology dies hard. The real teaching of Christianity is hard to hear and even harder to follow. Perverting it into blame and allegiance games is so much easier!

I have the clearest memory of a German "friend" suddenly going on an anti-Semetic rant about a mutual Jewish friend. I thought at the time "Surely, you of all must know this is not acceptable?" The only way he could feel comfortable voicing it was if he lived in a community that reinforced it. Do we really think there are people who don't think this way?

So we have a German pope who speaks the obvious to those who don't yet want to hear. Do we blame the pope or repeat the message louder? We repeat it until the throwbacks are forced to hear it and get it.

I'm not the biggest fan of this pope, but cut him some slack! He's not the problem. He's just less than the cure.

Bob Cleek
03-04-2011, 10:24 PM
Bob, you know very well that support for eugenics was pretty general in the 1920s; it was not a controversial or unusual position at all back then. This is a case of criticizing someone from the past for not holding current ideas. It's a very cheap tactic to attack Ms. Sanger for her positions on eugenics, when the actual reason for the hostility is that she did more than any other person to make birth control universally available, and abortion legal. This kind of thing is Sam's stock in trade, and even peb does it occasionally, but I expected better from you.

Oh, I suppose old Maggie wasn't all bad. Nobody is. Hitler loved children and dogs and if he were around today, I'm sure he'd sound a lot like Russ Limbaugh. But I have to differ with you on this. The eugenics movement was only more out in the open prior to Hitler's giving it a bad name. The evil of it continues unabated, albeit sanitized. You hear it every time some Teabagger goes on about "welfare mothers who ought to be sterilized." "illegal Mexican breeders" and people who argue that "it's better not to bring an unwanted child into the world." Sanger's underlying agenda never changed during her lifetime, and hasn't yet. Her Planned Parenthood outfit is still euthanizing unwanted babies and "making it possible for poor women not to have babies." (And for men to impregnate them without accepting any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.)

pefjr
03-04-2011, 10:30 PM
Take almost any closed group of people and start working back through your family and you are quickly amazed at the numbers that come up. Take Blacks in America, not too much immigration since the 18th century . Go back 8 generations or about 200 years and one black alive today has 256 ancestors in 1800. So of the total population of blacks, most all will share quite a lot of ancestors. Jewish are a closed group also. We all start to share ancestors at some point. You have 32,800 ancestors when Columbus arrived in the Bahamas. We may all be not too distant cousins. Odds are that the more open groups are closer relatives. Every muslim and every christian most likely has a jew in the family tree.

Bob Cleek
03-04-2011, 10:35 PM
I am an open book Bob. Nothing to hide here, no shame, including the source of the thread(Ass. Press), which you must have mistaken for a tabloid. I have read nothing written by this pope except as you say "headline stories". I am just not interested in a pope or his writings. All my studies and conclusions were done 40 years ago. No religion is much different than 1970's basically. If I was forced to read it, I do know enough that I would consider the source foundation as faulty and discredit the rest. I could give you some true history sources to read to balance out that fiction if you are interested. BTW, my comment on the pope's intellect was only that I did not share your admiration, which only means I am not interested and is not a knowledgeable comment of his intellect. It's just that by his acts while pope, he has not shown me anything but the opposite of superior intellect. For instance his views on abortion are not what I would call intellectual. His views on homosexuality are plain ignorant of biology. There is more but you get the point.|:)

Yea, unfortuntely I do. You've "read nothing written by this pope but headline stories." You "just aren't interested in a pope or his writings" and your "studies and conclusions" were done "40 years ago, yet "his views on abortion (whatever they may actually be) are not what you call intellectual (whatever that may be)" and "his views on homosexuality are plain ignorant of biology." (Just what ARE his views on the biology of homosexuality, anyway?)

If you're so smart, how come you ain't rich?

pefjr
03-04-2011, 10:49 PM
(Just what ARE his views on the biology of homosexuality, anyway?)
I didn't mention Anthropology which is my field of study Bob and I have kept up to date. The pope chooses to not listen to the experts in the field, and if you don't know what the pope's policy is on homosexuality, I am sure our friend SamF will be glad to fill you in.

George Jung
03-04-2011, 11:32 PM
Bob, you know very well that support for eugenics was pretty general in the 1920s; it was not a controversial or unusual position at all back then. This is a case of criticizing someone from the past for not holding current ideas. It's a very cheap tactic to attack Ms. Sanger for her positions on eugenics, when the actual reason for the hostility is that she did more than any other person to make birth control universally available, and abortion legal. This kind of thing is Sam's stock in trade, and even peb does it occasionally, but I expected better from you.


I can't help but notice, you seem to be holding this to a very different standard than what you usually extract in the RCC threads. How's that work?

Keith Wilson
03-05-2011, 10:23 AM
George, I generally try to avoid that. Shouting back across the centuries to tell our ancestors how they were wrong is probably the most fruitless endeavor imaginable. I do sometimes disagree with what I think is a whitewashed version of history - the comforting story of the True Faith overcoming all those nasty heretical schismatic sects, for example. And a the risk of reopening a very old and putrid can of worms, the Albigensian Crusade was horrifying even by the standards of the 1200s, which is saying something. False history has effects in the present.

Regarding Ms. Sanger and eugenics, Bob's real objection to her is that she utterly destroyed the general moral objections to contraception, and to some extent abortion. He can't effectively attack the first directly, because almost everyone now agrees with her on that point. The second has been beaten to death, and no one will listen. Thus eugenics, which seems dangerously wrong now (the Nazis saw to that by taking it far beyond its logical extreme), but which was a very commonly held position in the 1920s, not terribly controversial, even a majority opinion.

But it's too late. That cat is long since out of the bag and disappeared over the horizon, and to those of us who think women should be able to control their own fertility, Ms. Sanger is a genuine hero, and legitimately so. A human being with faults, of course; I'm sure almost no one today would agree with her about eugenics, but a hero nonetheless.


Her Planned Parenthood outfit is still euthanizing unwanted babiesThis, sir, is a damned lie (at the risk of turning this into another **** abortion thread) . Time to send a little more money to Planned Parenthood, I think.

Peerie Maa
03-05-2011, 10:36 AM
The processes available in the '20s in the practice of eugenics, and the understanding of the conditions that eugenics were being applied to certainly made the practice immoral.
Now with diagnostics operating at the genome level, and the use of contraception to prevent the promulgation of harmful conditions the underlying philosophy may need debated again.

Keith Wilson
03-05-2011, 10:41 AM
Good point.

Michael D. Storey
03-05-2011, 11:11 AM
Well, isn't this nice of the pope to forgive these murderers for the death of that barefoot preacher. The vatican has it all covered, from creating miracles for sainthood, to exorcism. Is there anything this infallible pope can not do?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_jews

I am most impressed with the way that he hides his horns. (Really! They are there!) A guy named Joe Shepard painted a portrait of His Elloquence wherein the horns are barely visible. Joe also painted the likeness of John Waters for the National Portrait Gallery. So there is still hope for his painterly soul.

Bob Cleek
03-05-2011, 02:55 PM
Regarding Ms. Sanger and eugenics, Bob's real objection to her is that she utterly destroyed the general moral objections to contraception, and to some extent abortion. He can't effectively attack the first directly, because almost everyone now agrees with her on that point. The second has been beaten to death, and no one will listen. Thus eugenics, which seems dangerously wrong now (the Nazis saw to that by taking it far beyond its logical extreme), but which was a very commonly held position in the 1920s, not terribly controversial, even a majority opinion.

No, Keith, I wasn't thinking of Sanger's pioneering work with popularizing contraception at all. Actually, in the 1920's (and Sanger was alive and working well into the 1960's), she was perhaps the first to confront all that popular entitlement BS about men "needing" sex and wives having a "duty" to give it up whenever the old man stumbled home with a snoot full. It would seem that her promotion of eugenics was more a "sales pitch" than anything else. She duped the moneyed men in power who had outlawed even the published discussion of contraception into allowing it (although she spent a lot of time in the courts doing so) by leading them to believe access to contraceptives would provide them a means of eliminating the proliferation of immigrant riff raff. Practically speaking, her efforts put a bandaid on the problem, but failed to address the real underlying sexist genesis of the issue: men's control of women in pursuit of their own sexual gratification. Problem was, and still is, paradoxically, that while artificial contraception "gave women control over their own fertility," not only did it do nothing to wrest control of women from men, but actually eroded what little ability women had to resist being controlled. Avoiding unwanted pregnancy is now commonly perceived by men as a woman's responsibility. Sure, there are those sensitive "Alan Aldas" among us who pay lip service to "women's rights," but there's no denying that a stiff dick has no conscience and women, not men, still pay the price for that.

In a token effort to avoid thread drift, what the modern Catholic Church now refers to as the "Theology of the Body" also confronts the same oppression of women that Sanger did, without resort to eugenics or, at least in theory if not practice, artificial means of contraception. The Church's teaching is that "family planning" ought to be a shared feature of the intimate loving relationship of spouses, not something one or the other of them, depending on the mechanics chosen, and generally the woman, is "responsible for," . Were that philosophy embraced by men today, women would enjoy a greater autonomous equality. Obviously, the Church has as hard a time selling the concept to men as Margaret Sanger did.

I, too, am tired of abortion threads, but our societal perceptions of it are indeed changing, as did society's perceptions of eugenics. Your observation that eugenics is a theory no longer in good currency today (although I believe remaining at the root of a lot of today's public policy in "sugar coated" form) illustrates exactly the point I was making. The labels change, but the underlying evils only morph so as to appear to be something else. My reference to "euthanizing babies" was a considered term. I think that one would find the overwelming majority of OB/GYNs today wouldn't dispute the accuracy of that description. Just as today we abhor the logical extention of the theory of eugenics perpetrated by the fascists (German, Italian, Spanish, Japanese, Russian, Chinese... take your pick), we continue to seek the very same ends through less viscerally offensive means, whether it be by outlawing more than one child per family in China or by social disapproval of our poor having "kids they can't afford and our tax dollars have to pay for" here in the "enlightened" United States. And, just as we abohr the ancient Greeks and Romans leaving their unwanted newborns to die of exposure, we continue to seek the same end through less viscerally offensivie means. We rationalize that "it's just a bunch of cells" and "not human," when any physician who has observed or performed the procedure knows that's not the case. ("It" is long past being "just a bunch of cells" before a mother ever knows she's pregnant.) Our collective denial is so strong that we even consider photographs of the products of abortion to be obscene and censor their publication, even here in the Bilge! What difference is there qualitatively between a Roman throwing a just born infant on the garbage heap and a medical professional throwing an unborn infant down a hospital garbage disposal? We've have just found a way to do that which avoids the inconvenience of a full term pregnancy and delivery... and, of course, the disquieting cries of dying infants in the night. Yes, times change and progress marches on. We are oh so much more civilized today than the Greeks and Romans were, or even back in the 1920's when women didn't have a "right to choose." And notice, if you will, that throughout all of this history, we guys really haven't had to concede a bit of our power and control over women.

I guess if "everyone agrees," it's okay. If, of course, one looks to everyone else to do their thinking for them.

Waddie
03-05-2011, 03:30 PM
50 million abortions goes way beyond "family planning". A 63% abortion rate in New York City goes way beyond "family planning". Abortion in this country is simply another form of birth control. Don't want to use a condom? Can't remember to take that pill every day? No worries, abortion is readily available. However, I still believe in a woman's right to choose, they will anyway. But let's be honest about what is going on, and it ain't pretty.

Do you also believe in equal rights? Why don't men have any say in whether or not to have the child? After all, it's their child, too. (I concede that probably the majority of men don't want a say, but there are some that feel strongly that they want the child. Often, men aren't even informed about the abortion). This issue and the whole divorce process in this country are very biased against the rights of men.

P.S. No personal axe to grind here, I've been married to the same great gal for over 40 years. But a good friend of mine, and a good father, was absolutely destroyed by a judge during his divorce. What happened to him was patently unfair. The child support he pays is not used to for his kids, at least not much.

regards,
Waddie

Keith Wilson
03-05-2011, 06:05 PM
Sorry, Bob, we've been here before. I won't bite. Life's to short to argue this again.

You're dead wrong about changing perceptions, though; abortion is certainly not going the way of eugenics even in the US, much less the rest of the world, for all you wish it would. Average attitudes haven't changed significantly for thirty years, except for a bit of statistical noise. One example:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/abortion_legal.gif

Sam F
03-05-2011, 06:06 PM
...This is a case of criticizing someone from the past for not holding current ideas. It's a very cheap tactic...

And Keith claims to never have his mind changed here.
Yeah, I bet... but that sounds an awful lot like my historical anachronism point from the past. ;)
Well I'm proud of you.
The only problem you've got is that those "current ideas" are exactly the same as Ms. Sanger's, only "sanitized" as Mr. Cleek has so aptly pointed out already.
Now if Planned Parenthood had actually repudiated Ms. Sanger's ideas, then your "not holding current ideas" point might be valid. But they haven't and they won't. Why? Because repudiating Sanger would put them out of business.

Keith Wilson
03-05-2011, 06:08 PM
Planned Parenthood does not support eugenics. Claiming otherwise is a willful lie.

Allison
03-05-2011, 06:17 PM
Planned Parenthood does not support eugenics. Claiming otherwise is a willful lie.
When has Sammy ever let a small thing like the truth get in the way of spinning a good story?

pefjr
03-05-2011, 07:45 PM
I'm not the biggest fan of this pope, but cut him some slack! He's not the problem. He's just less than the cure.Well I hear from Bob how intelligent the pope is, and now I hear from CW, "He is not the problem". This is the leader of the largest christian religion, and the largest membership of any world religion, right. Let me refresh your memory of these recent 'intelligent' decisions by this pope.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99855373 Pope reinstates holocaust denier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlRJuZKmm74&feature=related "Not one jew died in nazi gas chambers"

Of course the documentation of Nazi Gas Chambers is mountainous. Bob, what purpose does the pope have when he is bringing into the flock such ignorance?

This pope has brought exorcism into the church recently and currently has priests in training. What's the purpose Bob? There is a demand for that kind of witchcraft?
He also was caught red handed attempting to fake a miracle to get his idol sainthood. Funny guy, likes to stay in the news I think. And the flock will line the street 10 deep trying to get a view of the man in a pope mobile.:rolleyes:

CWSmith
03-05-2011, 08:15 PM
pefjr, I appreciate your values, but your logic is not right. This pope reversed the excommunication of Christian souls, clergy, who had been spiritually banished for speaking views that are unpopular (and wrong). That does not mean that he agrees with their views - only that excommunication is a harsh penalty to pay. Some of us would argue that excommunication is extremely harsh treatment for any religion founded on forgiveness and renewal. It would make me happy if the very idea were eliminated and we accepted that those who hold wrong thinking are our brothers and sisters regardless of their ideas or their practices. You are, in essence, criticizing the practice of forgiveness - not a noble position to hold. I doubt you will find this pope denying the holocaust, and to be completely truthful, he is probably less conservative than the previous pope. He is less conservative, but still pretty conservative by today's standards and you won't find him making the sweeping declarations you would like to hear.

Sam F
03-06-2011, 07:36 PM
Planned Parenthood does not support eugenics. Claiming otherwise is a willful lie.

Are you gettin' sand up your nostrils Keith?
Pull your head out of the sand!:


Over the summer, The Advocate investigated the financial dealings of Planned Parenthood and made some shocking discoveries about the clinic-owning "nonprofit." We obtained the information by having an actor call clinics across the country and pose as a donor. The actor who called, The Advocate’s advisor, communicated to them a very racist agenda—the one that Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, had envisioned. He then asked to donate money specifically for the abortions of African-American babies in order to "lower the number of blacks in America."

Despite his bigoted requests, no Planned Parenthood employee (or director of development, in one case) declined the tainted money. Some even asked to speak with other employees to get permission. In the first day of calling seven clinics, not a single Planned Parenthood representative expressed outrage or concern at the racism behind donations specifically "to reduce the number of blacks." In fact, some even went as far as agreeing with the anti-black agenda.


Turns out that "willful lie" is a cold hard fact.

Allison
03-07-2011, 05:59 AM
Are you gettin' sand up your nostrils Keith?
Pull your head out of the sand!:

Over the summer, The Advocate investigated the financial dealings of Planned Parenthood and made some shocking discoveries about the clinic-owning "nonprofit." We obtained the information by having an actor call clinics across the country and pose as a donor. The actor who called, The Advocate’s advisor, communicated to them a very racist agenda—the one that Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, had envisioned. He then asked to donate money specifically for the abortions of African-American babies in order to "lower the number of blacks in America."

Despite his bigoted requests, no Planned Parenthood employee (or director of development, in one case) declined the tainted money. Some even asked to speak with other employees to get permission. In the first day of calling seven clinics, not a single Planned Parenthood representative expressed outrage or concern at the racism behind donations specifically "to reduce the number of blacks." In fact, some even went as far as agreeing with the anti-black agenda.



Turns out that "willful lie" is a cold hard fact.

So they took his money and did what with it?
Sammy, unless you have proof that they actually used that money to preferentially abort "Black" babies then all you have is spin!
that's something you and your crowd are very good at but it's not facts by a long way and it's not "a cold hard fact" by any stretch of the imagination except in a mind like yours that can't see reason.
As your quote says the person on the phone initially questioned whether the money could be taken but I'm sure the conversation went.
"Forget the bigot's comments, we'll take the money and do something worthwhile with it"
Worthwhile, like proper sex education, contraceptives for people and abortions for women in need.
If the bigot's money wound up funding those positive things then the laugh is on him and on people foolish enough to think he achieved anything or that his deception proves anything!

Keith Wilson
03-07-2011, 07:30 PM
Ah, now Sam's reporting deception on the part of an anti-abortion zealot as if he's proud of it. Allison's likely right, although the fellow wasn't actually a racist, just a liar.

Once again, Planned Parenthood does not support eugenics. Claiming otherwise is a willful lie.

PeterSibley
03-07-2011, 08:03 PM
So they took his money and did what with it?
Sammy, unless you have proof that they actually used that money to preferentially abort "Black" babies then all you have is spin!
that's something you and your crowd are very good at but it's not facts by a long way and it's not "a cold hard fact" by any stretch of the imagination except in a mind like yours that can't see reason.
As your quote says the person on the phone initially questioned whether the money could be taken but I'm sure the conversation went.
"Forget the bigot's comments, we'll take the money and do something worthwhile with it"
Worthwhile, like proper sex education, contraceptives for people and abortions for women in need.
If the bigot's money wound up funding those positive things then the laugh is on him and on people foolish enough to think he achieved anything or that his deception proves anything!


Thanks for taking the time to explain that to Sam Allison ,I tend to just laugh and scroll on !!

Vince Brennan
03-07-2011, 10:29 PM
Full points, Old Son. It is what we make of it and for those of us who believe in it, it is. For those of us who do NOT believe in it, it is NOT. Simplistic, to be sure, but it is on that level that such things are best handled.

And, as I've said before, One Day We Will ALL Find Out If We're Correct!



The Pope wasn't "forgiving" anyone. I believe his statement was that the general Jewish population of that period are not to be held accountable for the death of Christ. Rather, it was a few leaders of the Temple and their supporters( he didn't address his feelings for those folk). No reason to forgive those who have not committed an offense.

In modern America, there are those who hold the entire Islam faith accountable for the actions of a few crazies. Same sort of thing.

GregH, Those who use only reason to get thru life can't begin to understand religion(and nobody can or ever will fully understand God while here on Earth). Faith has little to do with reason and logic. Look at the infinity of outer space. It's there and we know it, yet who can possibly begin to grasp outer space as going on for ever and ever? You just can't wrap your head around it. Reason and logic start to take a holiday. Faith in God is sort of the same. It's something some of us feel and know is there, but can't even begin to understand it. In the prayer book of my church (Episcopal) there's a prayer that starts, "May the Peace (knowledge) of God, which passes all human understanding...). That's the starting point of Faith.

Keith Wilson
03-07-2011, 10:51 PM
One Day We Will ALL Find Out If We're Correct!Or maybe not.

Lew Barrett
03-07-2011, 11:19 PM
Or maybe not.

Beat me to it, but knowing Vince, I suspect the comment was made with a wry smile.

AussieBarney
03-08-2011, 12:00 AM
What gets me is that grown men, many of whom hold tertiary qualifications which would have included studying logic at a high level believe in the ramblings of bronze age goatherders who wrote a series of books to keep their subject peoples in line. That these books could have revelance in the twentyfirst century is almost comical. The only reason that it is not comical is that people, mostly innocent people are killed and treated with the utmost barbarity in the name of these works of fiction. People, there is no imperical evidence that any of it has any basis in truth.
I will CHALLENGE anyone to prove two stories in the bible which all priests have tried to tell me was true. Virgin birth and The Resurrection. You need two people to exchange DNA in the form of sperm from the male to create a child, ergo the female is no longer virgin, FACT. The cruxifiction of J.C. was one of the most painful and barbaric punishments of all time and you did not get up and walk away. Once dead, dead for all time, FACT
Please feel free to prove me wrong using accepted scientific practice and principles. If you can you will have won a convert and this fact will be recorded agsainst your name in the great book!!!

Glen Longino
03-08-2011, 12:15 AM
Or maybe not.

Or likely not!

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 12:20 AM
Please feel free to prove me wrong using accepted scientific practice and principles. If you can you will have won a convert and this fact will be recorded agsainst your name in the great book!!!

You are asking that historical issues be proven via scientific practice and principles.
Not possible, unless you are considering historical research a branch of science.
If so, lemme know. ;)

Sam F
03-08-2011, 01:50 AM
Ah, now Sam's reporting deception on the part of an anti-abortion zealot as if he's proud of it. Allison's likely right, although the fellow wasn't actually a racist, just a liar.

Humm... "just a liar" is some improvement... I guess.
However, you are simply wrong about the singularity of the "lie":

A One- ah...
Ohio representative: Lisa Hutton, administrative assistant

Ohio donor: There’s definitely way too many Black people in Ohio, so I am just trying to do my part.

PP Rep: OK, whatever.

Ohio donor: Well, Blacks especially need abortions, so that’s what I’m trying to do.

PP Rep: For whatever reason, we’ll accept the money.

Ohio donor: OK. Great, thank you.

And a Two- ah...


Idaho representative: Autumn Kersey, director of development

Idaho donor: The abortion—I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?

PP Rep: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.

Idaho donor: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.

PP Rep: Yes, absolutely.

Idaho donor: And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.

PP Rep: Understandable, understandable.

Idaho donor: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college

PP Rep: Alright. Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited, and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.

And a whole lot more-ah ..." Despite his bigoted requests, no Planned Parenthood employee (or director of development, in one case) declined the tainted money. Some even asked to speak with other employees to get permission. In the first day of calling seven clinics, not a single Planned Parenthood representative expressed outrage or concern at the racism behind donations specifically "to reduce the number of blacks." In fact, some even went as far as agreeing with the anti-black agenda."


Once again, Planned Parenthood does not support eugenics. Claiming otherwise is a willful lie.

Officially? No of course not.
Do they support eugenics structurally and practically? Of course they do.
So given the large number of "liars" who work at Planned Parenthood - what are we supposed to conclude about the majority of PP clinics sited in or near minority neighborhoods? That the circumstance is just by chance?

Sam F
03-08-2011, 01:55 AM
So they took his money and did what with it?


You aren't reading very carefully. Planned Parenthood got no money.
Assuming you are correct about the numerous examples LiveAction recorded, PP's employees did however uniformly lie to get that money.
Hummm... they lied for money. What else would they lie about?
Well Live Action already demonstrated that Planned Parenthood employees routinely lie to shelter rapists of young girls.
That you would approve of such an organization... well that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Allison
03-08-2011, 02:09 AM
You are asking that historical issues be proven via scientific practice and principles.
Not possible, unless you are considering historical research a branch of science.
If so, lemme know. ;)

Hi Deb,
Easy!
The premise of a virgin birth is that a higher mammalian form produced a viable offspring without sexual reproduction. A search of all the known species of higher mammal would find none that can procreate without a transfer of DNA. More specifically the particular virgin birth being considered was one that occured among humans. Are there any scientifically obseved and supported instances of procreation without transfer of DNA? Answer NO!
Is there any scientifically viable evidence that the particular "historical figure" was born under such conditions. Answer NO!
For this instance of "virgin birth" to be accepted as such would require evidence that could be assessed scientifically, there is no evidence that would meet those criteria.
Of course this says nothing about the historical existence of a guy called Jesus one way or another!
All it says is that there is no evidence at all of a virgin birth in higher mammals, no evidence of any process that could make this possible and with regard to the particular instance claimed to have occured, there is absolutely no evidence available that can be assessed and short of a corpse that could be absolutely identified as JC upon which a DNA analysis could be done that proved no DNA from a "Father". There never can be any proof that the claimed event took place!
Sorry, but the Virgin birth of JC can never be proved to have occured without meeting those criteria.
Lots of scientifically proven events have occured over historical time and there is abundant evidence to prove them.

Allison
03-08-2011, 02:13 AM
You aren't reading very carefully. Planned Parenthood got no money.
Assuming you are correct about the numerous examples LiveAction recorded, PP's employees did however uniformly lie to get that money.
Hummm... they lied for money. What else would they lie about?
Well Live Action already demonstrated that Planned Parenthood employees routinely lie to shelter rapists of young girls.
That you would approve of such an organization... well that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Sammy, they didn't lie, they just agreed to accept the bigot's money. The only liar was the bigot who was trying to entrap them!
you really do need to go back and think this through a bit more Sammy, you can do better than this. Usually you have a slightly better position than this. Are you getting a bit desperate this week, reaching the bottom of the muck barrel?

Sam F
03-08-2011, 02:22 AM
Sammy, they didn't lie,...
"Idaho representative: Autumn Kersey, director of development

Idaho donor: The abortion—I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?

PP Rep: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.

Idaho donor: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.

PP Rep: Yes, absolutely.

Idaho donor: And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.

PP Rep: Understandable, understandable."

Maybe you need a dictionary Allison.

Sam F
03-08-2011, 02:38 AM
...Time to send a little more money to Planned Parenthood, I think.

Tell you what Keith... when you call to make your donation, ask them if they'll take it to provide for an abortion to a woman with a baby, excuse me!, make that "fetus", with cleft palate, club foot or other similar defect.
Let's see what happens.
Wanna bet that I'm right about Planned Parenthood supporting eugenics?
Or do I need to make that call for you?

Allison
03-08-2011, 02:39 AM
"Idaho representative: Autumn Kersey, director of development

Idaho donor: The abortion—I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?

PP Rep: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.

Idaho donor: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.

PP Rep: Yes, absolutely.

Idaho donor: And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.

PP Rep: Understandable, understandable."

Maybe you need a dictionary Allison.

So Sammy, where in that conversation that you posted do I find the link between the last bigoted statement of the liar and the comment by the PP rep. There is absolutely nothing in there that comes even remotely close to proving that the PP rep was saying that she or he, agreed with the lying bigot's last statement. She could have been very politely ignoring his revolting lies and just saying that she found his wish to put the money in his new born childs name understandable!
Absolutely no proof at all.
Actually all it proves is what kind and polite people they have at the PP office that they didn't throw the lying bigot's rubbish straight back in his face!
A very positive affirmation of the quality work they do in training their staff!

Like I said Sammy, you are trying too hard and you don't have a case. Drop it and come up with one of your other ideas, they are usually at least mildly challenging to debate, but this!
It's a turkey from the start.
Sammy I'm embarrassed that someone of your standards has slipped to pedalling this sort of rubbish.
Lying bigots trying to entrap someone and then not having enough nous to even do a halfar*ed job of it in the end!
Please lift your game Sammy otherwise you are no fun to play with!:D

Sam F
03-08-2011, 03:45 AM
Hummm... they lied for money. What else would they lie about?
Well Live Action already demonstrated that Planned Parenthood employees routinely lie to shelter rapists of young girls. That you would approve of such an organization... well that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?


So Sammy, where in that conversation that you posted do I find... that the PP rep was saying that she or he, agreed

Right here: "If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose."

Here you go: http://www.merriam-webster.com/ You need it.

Use it and you'll do much better.



Lying bigots trying to entrap someone...

There was no "trying" about it. LiveAction scored a perfect hit. Again proving the real structural bigotry of Planned Parenthood.
BTW, it's called a "sting operation". If you object to them on principle, here's one you should complain to MI 5 about: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7890813/Sting-operation-that-caught-MI6-spy.html

How naughty of MI 5! And they used tax money to do it too. How shocking!
If you don't object, then maybe you might want to read Websters some more...

Allison
03-08-2011, 04:27 AM
Hummm... they lied for money. What else would they lie about?
Well Live Action already demonstrated that Planned Parenthood employees routinely lie to shelter rapists of young girls. That you would approve of such an organization... well that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Here you go: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Use it and you'll do much better.

There was no "trying" about it. LiveAction scored a perfect hit. Again proving the real structural bigotry of Planned Parenthood.
BTW, it's called a "sting operation". If you object to them on principle, here's one you should complain to MI 5 about: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7890813/Sting-operation-that-caught-MI6-spy.html

How naughty of MI 5! And they used tax money to do it too. How shocking!
If you don't object, then maybe you might want to read Websters some more...

You have a problem Sammy, you still haven't proved that they actually lied to the lying bigot. There is nothing in that conversation to prove that they lied or that they agreed. So why not leave it alone, you are embarassing yourself!

As for this

Planned Parenthood employees routinely lie to shelter rapists of young girls.

I think you are more than likely got this one a little twisted.

"Planned Parenthood employees routinely lie to shelter young girls from rapists".

But I'm sure you are about to trot out some unsubstantiated incident where someone connected in some way or another to PP accidentaly lied about a rapist. You wouldn't have hung the bait out there without having some single event, probably distorted story to spring with a big "Gotcha"!!
Well Sammy you are getting predictable.
So let me hide my eyes and when you spring this distortion on me, I can jump back in horror and pretend that I'm all caught unawares.
Do you want me to squeal all girly like and faint too?
After all it's international Women's Day here and you must be so overjoyed that despite all the successes there are still so many of your kind blocking progress and trying to take away women's rights!

So why not surprise me and tell me that in fact it was one of your daughters that wrote it and that I'm supposed to look like such a gullible fool, caught out again by Sammy the "Master".

Hi girl's, this is Alli, remember me, we chatted a while back and I told you about all the bad things your lovable dad and his misogynist mate Peb get up to.
I'm sure you remember that!
So how are you doing daughter's of Sammy, having any success making your dear old Dad see the light?
I know it's an uphill struggle but together we might just pull it off!
Chat another time!

Oh so what's next in the Sammy book of revelations?
That's right, we get to where Sammy makes some joke about me being foreign. Always a great success eh Sammy!

Well what do we have in the bag tonight?


If you object to them on principle, here's one you should complain to MI 5 about: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7890813/Sting-operation-that-caught-MI6-spy.html

Oh Wow, I'm floored, (Girlish screams of horror), what can I do?
Sammy's got me?

Sorry Sammy but what would I care about how a bunch of silly pommie spies act. MI5 and MI6 are in the UK. You may have heard of it, sort of near Europe, the home of your religion.
I like to check because so many Americans have no idea of world geography and I didn't want to embarass you Sammy.
Well if you're sure you know where the UK is then where I live is a country called Australia.
Now don't confuse it with Austria, it has a lot of links to your religion there in that country! Lot of really weird neoNazis there, wonder what that's linked to?
But wrong one!
We are on the other side of the world.
No I don't mean on the bottom of a flat Earth!
You're not one of them are you Sammy?
Just checking, don't want to embarass you, after all we are friends, and I'm a family friend too now that I've chatted to your daughters so many times.

No, so back to Geography 101.
Australia is about as far away from UK as you can get. Maybe it was all part of the guy with the white beard's plan, I don't know but if it was Thanks Old Guy With a White Beard!
So you see Sammy I really have zero interest in what a bunch of pommie spooks do!
I lived in the UK years ago, and in the States, Italy (headquarters of your religion), Switzerland and a few other places. Ever get out much Sammy?

So where were we?
Oh that's right, you were once again failing to provide a gram of proof for your claims.
Thanks for the fun Sammy, say Hi to the Girls for me!

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 07:10 AM
For this instance of "virgin birth" to be accepted as such would require evidence that could be assessed scientifically, there is no evidence that would meet those criteria.
...there is absolutely no evidence available that can be assessed
Sorry, but the Virgin birth of JC can never be proved to have occured without meeting those criteria.


As I said, this is a question of history - a singular event - not a question of science. Of course your questions will come up with "no." They are the wrong questions.

Allison
03-08-2011, 07:18 AM
As I said, this is a question of history - a singular event - not a question of science. Of course your questions will come up with "no." They are the wrong questions.
Hi Deb, so how are they the wrong questions.
I would've thought a Virgin Birth is a scientific matter first and foremost and when it may have occured an historical one.
No point in looking through history if we know that it can't happen. But if we accept that maybe it did somehow then there would need to be proof. Just as we have proof of dinosaurs and all sorts of other creatures and events from long ago, proven on the basis of a combination of science and historical research, well Paleontological research, so a virgin birth would require proof of not just hearsay witnesses but some verifiable scientific evidence to substantiate the scientifically challenging nature of the event!

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 07:44 AM
Hi Deb, so how are they the wrong questions.
I would've thought a Virgin Birth is a scientific matter first and foremost and when it may have occured an historical one.
.... But if we accept that maybe it did somehow then there would need to be proof. ...so a virgin birth would require ... some verifiable scientific evidence to substantiate the scientifically challenging nature of the event!

It would be a scientific question if it was a repeatable event; it is not claimed to be repeatable, but singular.

The necessary proof can be of a historic nature, but not of a scientific nature (assuming you consider historical proofs non-scientific).

What verifiable scientific evidence would exist from a 2000 year old event? Do we say Caesar's existence depends on verifiable scientific evidence? Why or why not?

Ian McColgin
03-08-2011, 07:52 AM
The virgin birth is replicable - look at those occasional paternity suits against a public swimming pool . . .

Allison
03-08-2011, 07:59 AM
We have lots of literary and material evidence for caesar, both of which are subject to scientific investigation, we have a reasonable knowledge of his health as well. We have virtually no independent literary evidence outside the Bible for Jesus and absolutely no material evidence to test. But that's all about his existence as a historical event.
To claim that a Virgin birth is not subject to scientific examination and require scirntific proof is a bit of a stretch Deb. It's a medical event, of singular importance if it did occur. unique and therefore requiring scientific support
a) as to even the possibility of it occuring.
and
b) if it was possible it would still require evidence that could be verified and tested before it could be accepted. This evidence would have to be of a nature that proved a particular and singular scientific event.

unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence that even remotely meets those criteria.
The idea of a "virgin birth" becomes a matter of belief and that is fine but without testable evidence it can never be a proven fact!

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 08:22 AM
We have lots of literary and material evidence for caesar, both of which are subject to scientific investigation, we have a reasonable knowledge of his health as well.

Material, e.g. archaeological?
We have more literary evidence for Jesus than virtually any other figure of antiquity.


We have virtually no independent literary evidence outside the Bible for Jesus and absolutely no material evidence to test. But that's all about his existence as a historical event.

Wrong re extra-Biblical literary evidence.



To claim that a Virgin birth is not subject to scientific examination and require scirntific proof is a bit of a stretch Deb. It's a medical event, of singular importance if it did occur. unique and therefore requiring scientific support
a) as to even the possibility of it occuring.
and
b) if it was possible it would still require evidence that could be verified and tested before it could be accepted. This evidence would have to be of a nature that proved a particular and singular scientific event.

Allison: the only way you can have scientific proof is if the claim involves the living. It does not apply; get it off the table. As I have been saying, this is a historical question, not a scientific one.


unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence that even remotely meets those criteria.


Correct...again, because your criteria are inapplicable.

Allison
03-08-2011, 08:31 AM
Deb, it's simple. Is there any scientific evidence for the possibility of a "virgin birth in higher mamals". the answer is no, there is none at all. It is considered a scientific impossibility.
Now if we were to ignore that and say OK, maybe it did happen, then you would still have to be able to prove that the event actually happened as a "virgin birth" and not just as a story about one. The only evidence that could prove the actual nature of the event would be scientific. The evidence that would prove the events occurence within a historical framework is historical. they are different but they are used to prove different things.


the only way you can have scientific proof is if the claim involves the living.
Sorry Deb but you're not actually being serious when you say that are you?
You must be joking!

Anthony Zucker
03-08-2011, 09:13 AM
A note on "Virgin Birth". I think Christians base it on Isaiah 7-14.

That paragraph was about a war against a king of Damascus about 700 BCE. In it God will give a sign to Israel of a boy born to a young woman who shall know right from wrong and shall save Israel from the Assyrians. The word for woman in this paragraph is not close to the word for virgin but somehow this has been taken as the basis for all the virgin birth stuff.

Judaism has a tradition of hoping and praying for a Messiah whose arrival will bring peace and unity to all people. That would be a nice thing but has no relationship to Isaiah 7-14.

Faith can be a wonderful thing, particularly if it helps folks to behave well

peb
03-08-2011, 10:10 AM
We have virtually no independent literary evidence outside the Bible for Jesus
You really should take some time and study history a little closer (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, early Jewish rabbinical writings). More importantly, why is the Bible, aprior, rejected as historical evidence? There are other ancient sources which talk of historical figures, these sources often have myth and legend mixed in with them, yet they are often cited as valid historical evidence for the existence of people. Do any serious historians even question the fact that a man, by the name of Jesus, did in fact exist in Palestine 2000 odd years ago? I don't think so.

The fact that you would even allude to the possibility of Jesus not being a true historical figure betrays your predjudice and closed mindedness. I can disagree with the religion of Islam and try to dispute its principles, but I am not going to get very far convincing others by advocating that Mohamed was a fictional character.

pefjr
03-08-2011, 11:04 AM
[QUOTE]Do any serious historians even question the fact that a man, by the name of Jesus, did in fact exist in Palestine 2000 odd years ago? pebYes, by far, most Historians that can distinguish facts from faith, do question the story of jesus. Strong belief is not accepted by any serious Historian as fact. Why do you question bigfoot stories? They have photos and eyewitness accounts. One just came out a few days ago about fossil evidence in a meteorite, and was immediately discounted. If you can substitute faith and bogus stories for knowledge and not even be aware you are doing it, and not believe any intelligent person telling you that you are doing this, then indoctrination is your answer.

peb
03-08-2011, 11:48 AM
pefjr, I am an amateur historian, I read a lot of history books. I am sorry, you are simply wrong. I will admit that a few historians (but mostly of the non-professional stripe) argue for the non-existence of Jesus, but these are a small minority of the historian community. It came into fashion during the enlightenment period of the 18th and early 19th century and has steadily lost traction since.

Its just a really hard case to justify based on the evidence.

pefjr
03-08-2011, 12:07 PM
pefjr, I am an amateur historian, I read a lot of history books. I am sorry, you are simply wrong. I will admit that a few historians (but mostly of the non-professional stripe) argue for the non-existence of Jesus, but these are a small minority of the historian community. It came into fashion during the enlightenment period of the 18th and early 19th century and has steadily lost traction since.

Its just a really hard case to justify based on the evidence.There may a few that argue for non-existence of jesus. That's not what I said. Most Historians want more evidence of jesus. They question the existence on the lack of factual evidence. Question peb, not argue, that jesus could not have existed. Big difference. It is up to the claimers to prove jesus existed. Now, the story of jesus and the claims of miracles is not believable at all, except by faith alone. That is fiction.

peb
03-08-2011, 12:20 PM
There may a few that argue for non-existence of jesus. That's not what I said. Most Historians want more evidence of jesus. They question the existence on the lack of factual evidence. Question peb, not argue, that jesus could not have existed. Big difference. It is up to the claimers to prove jesus existed. Now, the story of jesus and the claims of miracles is not believable at all, except by faith alone. That is fiction.

Up to claimers to prove Jesus existed? Not at all. I will admit, Jesus' life, as I believe is based on faith. As such, I feel no need at all to prove that He even existed. If he existed, without the miracles and more importantly, without the resurrection, he becomes rather meaningless to me. All I was doing was pointing out the absurdity of the argument of a completely non-historical Jesus, or more specifically the absurdity of the statement that we have no evidence of him beyond the Bible. There is as much contemporaneous evidence of the man as there are for most ancient historical figures (eg Alexander, Ramses), if not more.

Peerie Maa
03-08-2011, 01:21 PM
It would be a scientific question if it was a repeatable event; it is not claimed to be repeatable, but singular.

The necessary proof can be of a historic nature, but not of a scientific nature (assuming you consider historical proofs non-scientific).

What verifiable scientific evidence would exist from a 2000 year old event? Do we say Caesar's existence depends on verifiable scientific evidence? Why or why not?

We discussed this not long ago, http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?127431-Read-the-Bible/page8 and later reprised in the same thread, post #418 http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?127431-Read-the-Bible/page9

Allison
03-08-2011, 03:08 PM
Well Peb, I would've thought you Catholics would've wanted to stay away from quoting Tacitus as support for the existence of a guy called Jesus but if that's what you want here it is.


Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular

The only mention of a guy called Jesus in Tacitus, it's actually disputed by some scholars asa a later christian addition but we'll let that be!
So Tacitus says there was a Jesus but he does most definitely blame the Romans for his death. There is no hint at all that the Jews played any part in the execution.
So where does that leave 2000 years of Catholic history of blaming the Jews for killing Christ?
You chose Tacitus, a writer I am aware of, but he lays the blame for the execution firmly on the Romans.
So 2000 years of vile antiSemitism supported and encouraged by the Vatican have been shown to be a totally evil campaign based on the denial of historical evidence. The Catholic church willfully distorted history to promote antiSemitic pogroms.
So it's taken 2000years for their lie to be finally admitted by the Vatican!
Maybe you want to be a little more careful which historical sources you quote in future Peb.
I believe the expression is OWN GOAL PEB!!!:d:d

Now shall we go wandering through a few other sources for a guy called Jesus, are you really sure that you want that Peb?

Sam F
03-08-2011, 04:44 PM
Planned Parenthood employees routinely lie to shelter rapists of young girls.

You have a problem Sammy, you still haven't proved that they actually lied to the lying bigot. There is nothing in that conversation to prove that they lied or that they agreed. So why not leave it alone, you are embarassing yourself!

Too bad you didn't take my advice about using a dictionary. Websters says for its first definition of proof: "1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact."
As it happens the many sting operations conducted against Planned Parenthood have demonstrated that PP has a culture of "tolerance" that includes breaking US law by refusing to report rape to the authorities.
But I don't ask you to take my word for it since that it completely unnecessary. Abby Johnson the former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic says of their covering up of sex trafficking.. "It happens all the time."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260202/it-happens-all-time-kathryn-jean-lopez

There is of course much more evidence that would compel a reasonable person's acceptance of a truth or a fact.

"– In 2002, an activist with Life Dynamics called 813 Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation abortion facilities posing as a 13-year-old girl pregnant by a 22-year-old man and said she wanted an abortion. She found that 91% of the abortion facilities agreed to cover up the statutory rape and perform the abortion without reporting the rape.

– In 2007, a Kansas district attorney filed 107 criminal charges against the federally funded Planned Parenthood in Overland Park, Kansas, for performing and covering up illegal late-term abortions, 23 of which were felonies.

– In 2008, both Students for Life and Live Action released undercover footage of Planned Parenthood facilities willing to cover up the statutory rape of minor girls. Please note that these are not isolated incidents, as actual lawsuits have been popping up across the nation against Planned Parenthood facilities for covering up the abuse of minor girls.

– In January of 2011, Live Action released seven shocking videos shot at different Planned Parenthood facilities that showed Planned Parenthood employees aiding actors who were posing as human sex traffickers. In some of the footage, the Planned Parenthood workers even offer suggestions as to how the traffickers can skirt the law and get contraception and abortions for underage girls and how the girls can continue to work immediately after their abortions."

Oh well! There's goes your "argument". Frankly the only way you can doubt this particular truth statement is to bury your head in the sand - deeply.
So whether you like it or not:
"Planned Parenthood employees routinely lie to shelter young girls from rapists".



So let me hide my eyes and when you spring this distortion on me, I can jump back in horror and pretend that I'm all caught unawares.
Do you want me to squeal all girly like and faint too?
After all it's international Women's Day here and you must be so overjoyed that despite all the successes there are still so many of your kind blocking progress and trying to take away women's rights!

You've proved you don't care what happens to young girls caught in sex trafficking - so I rather doubt you'll have the vapors.



That's right, we get to where Sammy makes some joke about me being foreign. Always a great success eh Sammy!

Speaking of proof, kindly demonstrate with appropriate quotes where I made a joke about you being "foreign"


Sorry Sammy but what would I care about how a bunch of silly pommie spies act. MI5 and MI6 are in the UK. You may have heard of it, sort of near Europe, the home of your religion.
I like to check because so many Americans have no idea of world geography and I didn't want to embarass you Sammy.
Well if you're sure you know where the UK is then where I live is a country called Australia... Australia is about as far away from UK as you can get...

I have not the slightest concern where you live. A sting operation anywhere in the Anglosphere works as well for an example.
As it happens those things do happen in Australia too, such as this article from the Herald Sun, "Stings to bust corrupt politicians, judges and public servants":
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/stings-to-bust-corrupt-leaders/story-e6frf7kx-1226009119992

If you object to such things on principle please contact Crime Prevention Minister Andrew McIntosh and complain about their lying. Otherwise your objection to the stings used on Planned Parenthood is based on nothing.
As to the diversion into geography... I'm afraid that was no help to you at all. ;)

*emphasis added.

Sam F
03-08-2011, 04:58 PM
Well Peb, I would've thought you Catholics would've wanted to stay away from quoting Tacitus as support for the existence of a guy called Jesus but if that's what you want here it is.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular"


The only mention of a guy called Jesus in Tacitus, it's actually disputed by some scholars asa [sic] a later christian addition but we'll let that be!

Lets see... Christians, to buttress their religion, are supposed to have added "a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular".

Well! That's plausible isn't it? :D

Ya know, nobody who wasn't already completely close minded would ever imagine that anyone would add so negative a statement about their faith after the fact.

But I gotta admit, as an "argument", it's REALLY FUNNY! :D

Sam F
03-08-2011, 05:59 PM
Two meanings of proof are relevant here:
"1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact."
The other is the so-called scientific "proof"*.
There is quite enough proof of the former kind to accept Jesus.
There is no proof whatsoever of the latter - nor should there be.


... If he existed, without the miracles and more importantly, without the resurrection, he becomes rather meaningless to me. All I was doing was pointing out the absurdity of the argument of a completely non-historical Jesus, or more specifically the absurdity of the statement that we have no evidence of him beyond the Bible. There is as much contemporaneous evidence of the man as there are for most ancient historical figures (eg Alexander, Ramses), if not more.

I know this is belaboring the obvious but when one is dealing with Atheists**one simply can not be too obvious.
Implicit in peb's statement is something that I'll now make explicit:
Yes, Jesus without miracles is nothing. Miracles establish Jesus' bona fides, so to speak, and that is the reason for them.
It is the height of absurdity to "prove" (in the scientific sense) the resurrection or the virgin birth.
That is because miracles by their very nature violate scientific laws.

To belabor this point even further:
If virgin birth occurred in humans then it wouldn't be miraculous, would it?
If people often resurrected from the dead that wouldn't be a miracle either.
Does everybody understand that now?



* Science proves nothing. All "truths" in science are provisional.
**and their allies

SamSam
03-08-2011, 06:06 PM
Ever since the chapel's financing spawned a government investigation four months ago, the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico has been trying to confront its historic ties to drug traffickers. Long dependent on gifts, but often less than discriminating about where they come from, the church is grappling with its role as thousands die in turf wars between rich, and sometimes generous, criminals.http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/03/church-in-mexico-trying-to-confront.html

Peerie Maa
03-08-2011, 06:07 PM
Yes, Jesus without miracles is nothing. Miracles establish Jesus' bona fides, so to speak, and that is the reason for them.



Why can you not accept Christs teaching without the magic and superstition? Surely Christs message is the only important thing. Why do you need the mumbo jumbo? Can you not follow His teaching with out it?

GregH
03-08-2011, 06:36 PM
This thread truly demonstrates the absurdity of religion. It has been going on now for five days, and what's come of it? If you folks had put forth the same effort to solve some real problem- social, educational, perhaps even something relative to building a wooden boat, the world would have been better for it. And so the score stands: Puffery 1, Reason 0

pefjr
03-08-2011, 06:47 PM
Why can you not accept Christs teaching without the magic and superstition? Surely Christs message is the only important thing. Why do you need the mumbo jumbo? Can you not follow His teaching with out it?Excellent. Who answers this and their answer will be very revealing.

As this was:
* Science proves nothing. All "truths" in science are provisional.
** Atheists and their allies Sam F ****** who else:D

Keith Wilson
03-08-2011, 07:06 PM
cience proves nothing. All "truths" in science are provisional.Quite right. Science "proves" nothing. Proof is for closed systems like geometry. In the real world, we can only say that something is true to the best of our knowledge, and anything we think we know may have to be revised if we observe something that requires us to change our thinking. The willingness to change as we learn more is the great strength of science, the reason why it works, the reason that for the first time in human history, most of our children live to grow up.

The accusations against Planned Parenthood are really kind of pathetic. The motive is obvious; Planed Parenthood provides contraception or abortion to anyone who asks. Sam thinks these are terrible evils. Most folks don't agree. So in an attept to make the organization look bad to those who are not anti-abortion zealots, we have the trickerey and slander that Sam repeats.

pefjr
03-08-2011, 07:11 PM
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/03/church-in-mexico-trying-to-confront.htmlThis is prevalent throughout our society. Money talks. Here in Las Vegas I call it turning your head while holding out your hand. Everyone from the busboy to the CEO is guilty. Our Congressmen are guilty and Churches are guilty. I don't know anyone that is not guilty. Ebay and Craigslist are channels for it. The growth in Pawn shops over the last 50 yrs. DOD is probably the best example of this. How does anyone police this? It's everywhere there is money.

PeterSibley
03-08-2011, 07:33 PM
Corruption !!!! I thought it only happened in China !!

Sam F
03-08-2011, 08:01 PM
Why can you not accept Christs teaching without miracles?

Excellent. Who answers this and their answer will be very revealing.

What's the mystery about that?
Jesus claimed to be God and had the miracles to prove it. Lacking miracles, He's either insane or just an ordinary liar.

Sam F
03-08-2011, 08:07 PM
...The accusations against Planned Parenthood are really kind of pathetic. The motive is obvious; Planed Parenthood provides contraception or abortion to anyone who asks. Sam thinks these are terrible evils. Most folks don't agree. So in an attept to make the organization look bad to those who are not anti-abortion zealots, we have the trickerey and slander that Sam repeats.

Nobody has to make Planned Parenthood look bad. They do that all by themselves.
However it is quite obvious that contraception and abortion go hand in hand. One requires the other. You approve obviously, yet I notice you're not taking me up on my bet about PP functionally supporting eugenics either.
No surprises there.

TomF
03-08-2011, 08:14 PM
Why can you not accept Christs teaching without the magic and superstition? Surely Christs message is the only important thing. Why do you need the mumbo jumbo? Can you not follow His teaching with out it?I think you can, and that countless people try to. I also think that Christians (and devotees of other religions) need to recognize that God works in various ways in addition to through their own creeds - God's the God of all creation, not just one branded piece of it. Who am I to decree that Divine inspiration is limited to what God might have said through my preferred texts ...

That said, the "mumbo jumbo" can help, cause in the experience of many of us it isn't simply mumbo jumbo. If one has had an experience of the numinous, of something Other, then Jesus' teachings aren't the only important thing - it misses the power of the incarnation. Not, in my view, the saving power against the bloodthirsty cravings of a vengeful God bent on inflicting eternal torment ... but the solidarity of God loving so much that all of our experience is shared. So that nowhere are we alone, even in our uttermost depths.

Clearly, Sam and I disagree on a bunch of things - like the importance of miracles. But I think that he and I would each agree that the presence of God in the incarnation is terribly powerful ... as is the continued presence of God (again, echoing the incarnation) in the sacraments. This is something beyond just the teachings, which frankly helps provide the resources to try to enact the teachings.

BTW, while Pefjr pointed me towards post #128, there's a reason I haven't played in this thread 'till now. As you might anticipate.

ishmael
03-08-2011, 08:39 PM
The Jesus as the only son of God thang rubs me the wrong way. I'll bet, though I have no proof, that that isn't how he couched himself. He said he was one among equals, more than once. You are the son of god, try to live up to it. It's not an easy assignment. Jesus got killed for preaching it. The Romans didn't cozy with it, so they strung him up on a cross, in their fashion.

The desire for him to rise from the grave is worthy of a look. It may be the oldest story. I'm dead to my past, and want to rise to a new one. If you don't do that more than once you aren't truly alive.

Waddie
03-08-2011, 09:08 PM
Some of you could benefit from reading the works of the late Sarah Lawrence College professor Joseph Campbell, especially The Power of Myth. He discusses the great universal (Jungian) truths common to most cultures and that a metaphorical rather than literal interpretation is required to grasp the significance of stories like the virgin birth, which is common to all major religions. Then this thread would make some sense and some very interesting questions would present themselves.

P.S. You atheists have your own mythical belief systems as well, you just frame them in humanistic terms.

PSS. I'm agnostic....just indecisive I guess :)

regards,
Waddie

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 09:14 PM
He said he was one among equals, more than once.

That's new to me, Ish. References? Thanks.

SamSam
03-08-2011, 09:31 PM
However it is quite obvious that contraception and abortion go hand in hand. One requires the other.
Why would preventing conception require abortion? Are you saying any form of birth control is abortion?

TomF
03-08-2011, 09:33 PM
Nanoose? It's one interpretation on the term "Son of man."

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 09:41 PM
Nanoose? It's one interpretation on the term "Son of man."

His reference to himself as "Son of man" was to point his listeners back to the prophecy in Daniel 7:13-14, i.e. his declaration that he was the fulfillment of that prophecy.

pefjr
03-08-2011, 09:42 PM
Why can you not accept Christs teaching without miracles?


Jesus claimed to be God and had the miracles to prove it. Lacking miracles, He's either insane or just an ordinary liar.I am sure anyone claiming this today would be wearing a straight jacket right away. But 2000 yrs ago, that makes it legit, huh?:d

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 09:50 PM
My understanding of the resurrection is different than Tom's. I was particularly struck with NTWright's work on the topic in The Resurrection of the Son of God. He starts noting we have a fundamental shift to account for, and asks what can possibly account for it. Included is extensive research on the ANE and Jewish understandings (at that time) of resurrection, angels, spirits, death, life after death, etc., and how Christ's resurrection was absolutely outside their expectation, outside any sense of anticipation or possibility. The Jews expected a resurrection at the end of the age, not in the middle of it. It was totally unexpected, and wouldn't have been claimed without basis - the thought would never have even entered their minds.

TomF
03-08-2011, 09:56 PM
I had a prof who took Wright's line of thought. Argued that because of it, perhaps the most surprised person on Easter morning might have been Jesus himself. Because his resurrection had happened before everyone else's.

peb
03-08-2011, 09:58 PM
Why can you not accept Christs teaching without the magic and superstition? Surely Christs message is the only important thing. Why do you need the mumbo jumbo? Can you not follow His teaching with out it?

Several reasons. Well, people who say Jesus was just a really, wise teacher; tend to not read 90% of his teachings. They have a simplistic idea of what he taught. That's my experience. When you look at all of his teachings, you get a rather crazy man if he is not divine. Of course, the answer to this argument will be that we should just disregard his claims to divinity as non-historical (ie certainly such a wise man would have never said that), but then how do we know. At the end of the day, we either take the gospels pretty much as is, or they become interesting, but not much more.

Example: The golden rule, its nice but not that unique, and everyone likes to point to it. But this: Love God with your whole heart, mind, and soul and Love your neighbor as yourself. That one is pretty unique, but pretty much ignored by those who simply find Jesus a good teacher.

Also, many of His teachings only make sense in the context of who He was and his death/resurrection. I personally consider the beatitudes to be the wisest teachings ever uttered by a human being. But, if Jesus was not ushering in the Kingdom, what's the point of them. Certainly not near as significant, which is why they are pretty much ignored by people who don't believe in Jesus' divinity.

At the end of the day, its hard to follow his teachings without the cross and resurrection when part of His teaching is "Take up your cross and follow me".

ishmael
03-08-2011, 09:59 PM
My biblical scholarship is weak, but he says repeatedly he is just like us. If I really wanted to, I'd find it.

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 10:00 PM
I had a prof who took Wright's line of thought. Argued that because of it, perhaps the most surprised person on Easter morning might have been Jesus himself. Because his resurrection had happened before everyone else's.

Interesting thought, yet, Christ referred to his '3 day' resurrection on more than one occasion.

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 10:03 PM
My biblical scholarship is weak, but he says repeatedly he is just like us. If I really wanted to, I'd find it.

Mine's not overly strong, but I'm coming up blank as to "he says repeatedly he is just like us."

TomF
03-08-2011, 10:04 PM
Interesting thought, yet, Christ referred to his '3 day' resurrection on more than one occasion.
The question regarding such is always whether the saying was authentic, or a later addition by his writers. I've heard both opinions, convincingly.

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 10:06 PM
I too have heard both views.

Bob Cleek
03-08-2011, 10:07 PM
Some of you could benefit from reading the works of the late Sarah Lawrence College professor Joseph Campbell, especially The Power of Myth. He discusses the great universal (Jungian) truths common to most cultures and that a metaphorical rather than literal interpretation is required to grasp the significance of stories like the virgin birth, which is common to all major religions. Then this thread would make some sense and some very interesting questions would present themselves.

P.S. You atheists have your own mythical belief systems as well, you just frame them in humanistic terms.

PSS. I'm agnostic....just indecisive I guess :)

regards,
Waddie

Yes indeed! Excellent suggestion. For those here who apparently don't read, perhaps his lectures are available at the PBS website. Highly recommended for anyone who purports to know anything about the topics at hand.

Bob Cleek
03-08-2011, 10:15 PM
The question regarding such is always whether the saying was authentic, or a later addition by his writers. I've heard both opinions, convincingly.

What I never could get past was the fact that this new religion based on the premise that somebody actually rose from the dead, took off like wildfire, first right where it was supposed to have happened. Now, given that they didn't have the internet to blather all sorts of disinformation far and wide, and didn't even have news papers like the National Enquirer to keep us informed about two headed babies, you have to figure that the story spread by word of mouth. Given that, remember that the first who embraced the concept were First Century Jews, who weren't exactly open to embracing new gods at all. Then, there is what I call the "BS factor." Don't ya think the premise that some guy rose from the dead and lots of people claimed to have actually seen and spoken to him would have been quickly disproven and discarded... UNLESS there were sufficient credible first hand eyewitnesses to that fact whose reports were accepted by the, ultimately, millions of people who now believe just that? Look how hard it's been to convince the world of alien abductions, even though there are those who swear they've been subjected to alien anal probes! Seems to me if somebody took it up the poop chute, they'd damn well know it, but few believe them. Compare that to rising from the dead! I figure if a story that outlandish sold as well as it has, it's got to be true. Nobody can argue that it "don't have legs."

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 10:17 PM
Waddie:...the virgin birth, which is common to all major religions.

News to me. I wasn't aware that Muhammed, Buddha, Joseph Smith (etc.), or their followers, claimed a virgin birth. References? Thanks.

Bob Cleek
03-08-2011, 10:21 PM
Nobody has to make Planned Parenthood look bad. They do that all by themselves.
However it is quite obvious that contraception and abortion go hand in hand. One requires the other. You approve obviously, yet I notice you're not taking me up on my bet about PP functionally supporting eugenics either.
No surprises there.

Forget the anecdotes from the "sting operations." Planned Parenthood admitted it themselves in sworn testimony before the US Congress. When their federal funding (which was ultimately pulled, to the tune of, IIRC, some $385M) their officials testified, arguing to Congress that pulling their funding which helped provide some 325,000 abortions to poor women nationwide the last year they reported those statistics, would actually SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY because THE GOVERNMENT MONEY NECESSARY TO PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES TO THOSE CHILDREN, IF BORN, WOULD BE MORE THAN THE COST OF THE ABORTIONS PROVIDED BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

Sure sounds "eugenic" to me. Look it up in the Congressional Record, if you want to spend the time. My information is second hand from a reliable news report that was supporting the funding, not opposing it.

ishmael
03-08-2011, 10:36 PM
A good friend, Kathy who is now ten years dead, often put it to me that I was never going to understand the big things. I could pose the question, but it was going to come up empty. Sweet, but empty. She was as smart a person I've ever known.

pefjr
03-08-2011, 10:36 PM
Don't ya think the premise that some guy rose from the dead and lots of people claimed to have actually seen and spoken to him would have been quickly disproven and discarded... UNLESS there were sufficient credible first hand eyewitnesses to that fact whose reports were accepted by the, ultimately, millions of people who now believe just that? Look how hard it's been to convince the world of alien abductions, even though there are those who swear they've been subjected to alien anal probes! Seems to me if somebody took it up the poop chute, they'd damn well know it, but few believe them. Compare that to rising from the dead! I figure if a story that outlandish sold as well as it has, it's got to be true. Nobody can argue that it "don't have legs."As goes Joseph Smith and the Golden Tablets. gotta be true right? No telling what the world will be claiming about ol Joseph in the year 4000. And it 'll have to be true, right?

Nanoose
03-08-2011, 10:47 PM
A significant difference for me is the lack of witnesses to Smith's tablets (the 11 original claimed witnesses later retracted) and angel (none). Also, his life 'pre-vision,' lack of corroborating support for his claims, and aspects of his theology all give me pause.

Sam F
03-08-2011, 11:09 PM
However it is quite obvious that contraception and abortion go hand in hand. One requires the other.


Why would preventing conception require abortion?

Without the escape hatch of abortion contraception just isn't effective enough:
"Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method..."
while only "Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control.."
Source the Guttmacher Institute
It's pretty obvious from PP's own Guttmacher Institute data that lack of availability, or lack of knowledge of contraception is not the problem.


Are you saying any form of birth control is abortion?

How many times have I answered that one? I've lost count, but again the answer is: No.

Sam F
03-08-2011, 11:20 PM
...would actually SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY because THE GOVERNMENT MONEY NECESSARY TO PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES TO THOSE CHILDREN, IF BORN, WOULD BE MORE THAN THE COST OF THE ABORTIONS PROVIDED BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

Sure sounds "eugenic" to me.

Of course it's eugenic. The organization always has been.
PP's recent tax filing states that its purpose is in “[a]chieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment; in stimulating and sponsoring relevant biomedical, socio-economic, and demographic research.”

That too is eugenics... and it demonstrates that Planned Parenthood is a population control organization - forget the dodges about "providing healthcare". PP's president Cecile Richards claims they provide mammograms (http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/02/cecile-richards-misleads-planned-parenthood-does-not-provide-mammograms/) - which as far as I am able to discover is a false statement. Not that another lie is any surprise coming from Planned Parenthood.

peb
03-08-2011, 11:37 PM
The question regarding such is always whether the saying was authentic, or a later addition by his writers. I've heard both opinions, convincingly.

Seems to be a never ending game, and often the only point of it seems to be to weed out those quotes the particular scholar doesn't like.

Waddie
03-09-2011, 12:18 AM
Waddie:...the virgin birth, which is common to all major religions.

News to me. I wasn't aware that Muhammed, Buddha, Joseph Smith (etc.), or their followers, claimed a virgin birth. References? Thanks.

Well, here you go. You see, Christianity isn't really very original, therefore not sacred in a literal sense. The last citation should probably shock you if you believe the Bible is original and literal!!! :)

Easy citations to look up--got them all off ONE wiki page...


Buddhism

In Buddhism, unusual birth traditions were connected with the concept of "avatar." Some accounts tell of the descent of the future Bodhisatta from the "Tusita Body" into the mother’s womb, the appearance of the Buddha in the mother as a shining gem, and the accompanying wonders in the natural world…In the Mahapadana-sutta, Digha ii. 12, is the description of the incarnation of the Vipassi Buddha.

"Now Vipassi, brethren, when, as Bodhisat, he ceased to belong to the hosts of the heaven of Delight, descended into his mother’s womb mindful and self-possessed."

In this account, the “Great Being” chose the time and place of his birth, the tribe into which he would be born, and who his mother would be. In the time chosen by him, Maya, his mother, fell asleep and dreamed that four archangels carried her to the Himalayan Mountains where their queens bathed and dressed her. In her dream the Great Being soon entered her womb from her side, in the form of a white elephant.

Hindu

In the myth of Krishna “the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son, Vasudeva (i.e., Krishna). Also, before the birth of Krishna, no one “could bear to gaze upon Devaki, from the light that invested her, and those who contemplated her radiance felt their minds disturbed.”[31]

It is widely believed that the avatars taken by Vishnu on earth were virgin "births". In the Mahabharata epic, Karna was born to Queen Kunti by the god Surya, before her marriage to King Pandu.[8] Because she called him, the god of the Sun gave her a child, but restored her virginity, as she was as yet unmarried.

Zoroasterianism (predates Hebrew culture)

Zoroaster, whose faith was a type of monotheism, taught that a conflict between the opposing forces of light and darkness would last for 12,000 years, divided into eons of 3000 years each. His birth marked the beginning of the final eon, which was to be presided over by Zoroaster himself and his three sons who would be born after his death. The last of these would be the Messiah, or Saoshyant. The purpose of Zoroaster’s coming was to guide man, a free agent, to chose the right so that the world may become perfect. He taught that there would be a final battle between good and evil; the good would be victorious and the Messiah (Saoshyant) would rule. His reign would be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead and the judgment of the world.[49] SOUND FAMILIAR?

regards,
Waddie

AussieBarney
03-09-2011, 01:48 AM
O.K. you have flogged the virgin birth issue. Now, using accepted scientific methods and principles, explain the ressurection to me. I'm only a simple blackfeller, but if you get hung on a cross after being flogged 36 times with a metal tipped whip and then stabbed with a pilum in the right lung, in the year 0 you are gonna die and you are going to stay dead. This is something I know. I have watched men die from similar injuries and they died in agony. When you can answer quite simple questions without invoking faith you might have a debate, until then it has as much currency as any other set of myths and legends.

purri
03-09-2011, 02:10 AM
As goes Joseph Smith and the Golden Tablets. gotta be true right? No telling what the world will be claiming about ol Joseph in the year 4000. And it 'll have to be true, right?
I hears that Smith had a bitch of a headache so he needed them all.

Waddie
03-09-2011, 02:11 AM
We keep arguing whether Planned Parenthood is family planning or eugenics. Of course it's eugenics by any reasonable definition. We are getting rid of undesirable human beings. Once the DNA combines they are human by any biological standard. They are not just tissue; just unwanted or inconvenient. But let's not beat ourselves up about it. If we are a part of nature as many people, including major scientists, have concluded, then we aren't doing anything that several, even many, other species do. It is common for species in nature to kill their young, ie.,lions do it all the time. But we should face the fact that it is a form of murder, however unpleasant that may be. We just can't bear to think of ourselves that way sometimes.

Originally posted by Bob Cleek;
Planned Parenthood admitted it themselves in sworn testimony before the US Congress. Abortion would actually SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY because THE GOVERNMENT MONEY NECESSARY TO PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES TO THOSE CHILDREN, IF BORN, WOULD BE MORE THAN THE COST OF THE ABORTIONS PROVIDED BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

I don't think you can justify killing on economic grounds at any time or in any way. You could claim to be saving the planet from overpopulation perhaps but not just to save a buck. I'm not saying do away with abortion or that it's some kind of sin: I'm just saying be honest with yourselves about what it is. And it is what it is.

regards,
Waddie

Waddie
03-09-2011, 02:13 AM
O.K. you have flogged the virgin birth issue. Now, using accepted scientific methods and principles, explain the ressurection to me. I'm only a simple blackfeller, but if you get hung on a cross after being flogged 36 times with a metal tipped whip and then stabbed with a pilum in the right lung, in the year 0 you are gonna die and you are going to stay dead. This is something I know. I have watched men die from similar injuries and they died in agony. When you can answer quite simple questions without invoking faith you might have a debate, until then it has as much currency as any other set of myths and legends.

Thanks for doing the job for me!! :) You made my point....

regards,
Waddie

Allison
03-09-2011, 03:15 AM
Two meanings of proof are relevant here:
"1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact."
The other is the so-called scientific "proof"*.
There is quite enough proof of the former kind to accept Jesus.
There is no proof whatsoever of the latter - nor should there be.

Ok sammy, no one denies that there was a guy called Jesus wandering around Palestine 2000 years ago but is their a shred of unbiased proof that he was who he claimed to be.
There is no proof that God exists so there can't be a son!
Even if we had a proof for the existence of God there is still no unbiased evidence that Jesus is his son.

Remember Sammy, this is your quote

the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact."
There was no evidence that compelled the vast majority of the residents of Palestine that this guy Jesus was anybody special, they showed how special he was by having him executed.
If the evidence was so compelling you'd think that the people closest to the source would be believers. But sorry that very obviously wasn't the case.


Miracles establish Jesus' bona fides, so to speak, and that is the reason for them.
It is the height of absurdity to "prove" (in the scientific sense) the resurrection or the virgin birth.
That is because miracles by their very nature violate scientific laws.

To belabor this point even further:
If virgin birth occurred in humans then it wouldn't be miraculous, would it?
If people often resurrected from the dead that wouldn't be a miracle either.

You have no proof for the virgin birth other than a bunch of "witnesses" passing down anecdotal stories. There are some quite simple scientific tests that could be done to prove or refute a virgin birth, but there is no body to get DNA from.
In the absence of anyway to prove the case you are reliant purely upon conjecture and faith and that just doesn't cut it!
So that finishes off Virgin Birth, not provable because those who claim it can't provide the necessary evidence!

Doesn't look good for you Sammy!

I know this is belaboring the obvious but when one is dealing with fanatics one simply can not be too obvious.
No proof equals It's just a story!
I know it's hard Sammy but you'll just have to accept that you can believe what you want but that doesn't make it a fact!!

Allison
03-09-2011, 03:28 AM
Of course it's eugenic. The organization always has been.
PP's recent tax filing states that its purpose is in “[a]chieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment; in stimulating and sponsoring relevant biomedical, socio-economic, and demographic research.”

That too is eugenics... and it demonstrates that Planned Parenthood is a population control organization - forget the dodges about "providing healthcare". PP's president Cecile Richards claims they provide mammograms (http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/02/cecile-richards-misleads-planned-parenthood-does-not-provide-mammograms/) - which as far as I am able to discover is a false statement. Not that another lie is any surprise coming from Planned Parenthood.

Sorry Sammy, but you got this one wrong too. your whole attempt to paint PP asa a group that sponsors Eugenics is based on a distortion of the term Eugenics!


Eugenics is the "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population,"

That is a very different thing to

a]chieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment;

The first is all about altering the genetic pool and manipulating the genetic composition of a population. Totally different to the latter which has absolutely no connection to the manipulation of the genetic composition of a population, it is about population size.
Remember Sammy, you provided the quote and held it up as evidence of their being involved in genetics.

Sorry Sammy, own goal!:D

So we don't need to hear anymore of this rubbish about Eugenics because as you Sammy the Masterdebater have just proven, they are completely exonerated of that charge.

Allison
03-09-2011, 04:01 AM
Without the escape hatch of abortion contraception just isn't effective enough:
"Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method..."
while only "Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control.."
Source the Guttmacher Institute
It's pretty obvious from PP's own Guttmacher Institute data that lack of availability, or lack of knowledge of contraception is not the problem.

One last one Sammy, but I promise I'll come back and get the rest soon.

So all your figures prove is that 54% of women who had abortions had been concerned about getting pregnant and had used contraception of some form to avoid it at some time. You have no evidence that there is a link between the use of contraception and abortion.
I know I'm just a dumb woman Sammy but even I can add up without taking my shoes off!
54 + 8 comes to 62.
So if we have 54% using contraception at some time and 8 not.
What were the remaining 38% doing??
You're either using contraception or you're not Sammy so what were these other 38% doing?
It's sort of like being pregnant, you are either or your not!!
There is no inbetween!

I know they were all pregnant but were virgins and freaked out at the idea and ran and had abortions. Now Sammy if you could get just one of these pregnant virgins to stand still long enough to take a couple of simple "scientific" tests, maybe I should say "medical" so as not to throw you into a hysterical fit, then you would have your proof of a virgin birth
Da*n Sammy we are such good friends and make such a team, the girls will be so proud of us.
You proved that PP is not a Eugenics movement and I've shown you how to prove the virgin birth.
Who would have ever guessed that it was so common.
38% of women who got pregnant did so by some miraculous process.
One in three babies is a virgin birth!
How's that for proof Sammy and I was able to do it all with the figures that you so kindly supplied.
I know it was on the tip of your tongue to proclaim this revelation, all these miracles but being the modest and humble guy that you are Sammy, you let me use your figures to provide the evidence.
Thanks Sammy:D

You know Sammy, if you believe any of that other than 54 + 8 does not add up to 100, then I've got a story for you about a virgin birth and a guy walking on water.
Hang on, you say you've already heard that story! Oh well!

Allison
03-09-2011, 05:23 AM
Sam F
Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
VA
Posts
11,918
Re: The Pope and The Jews
Originally Posted by Allison
Well Peb, I would've thought you Catholics would've wanted to stay away from quoting Tacitus as support for the existence of a guy called Jesus but if that's what you want here it is.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular"

Originally Posted by Allison
The only mention of a guy called Jesus in Tacitus, it's actually disputed by some scholars asa [sic] a later christian addition but we'll let that be!
Lets see... Christians, to buttress their religion, are supposed to have added "a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular".

Well! That's plausible isn't it?

Ya know, nobody who wasn't already completely close minded would ever imagine that anyone would add so negative a statement about their faith after the fact.

But I gotta admit, as an "argument", it's REALLY FUNNY!


Sammy, I'm pretty sure the term is "straw man"!
If you look in the bit of my post that you quoted you would see that it says

it's actually disputed by some scholars asa [sic] a later christian addition but we'll let that be!

So that makes it pretty obvious that I'm not presenting it as an argt. that has any relevance to the debate. So your "huff and Puff" is wasted and is clearly a little theatrical sideshow aimed at distracting from the fact that Tacitus very clearly lays the blame for the death of Jesus on the Romans!
Where does that leave 2000 years of Vatican encouraged antiSemitism!
A topic you are avoiding for very obvious reasons.
I was under the impression that was the original poster's interest!

As I said I could understand a smart catholic not wanting to make any sort of fuss about Tacitus but you guys chose to use him.
Not only did you choose to use him, you then have made some considerable effort to ridicule the idea that the passage may have been a later interpolation.
If it had been written in later, it is only found in a copy of a fragment of the "Annals" from the C11, then that would've given the Vatican an excuse to claim that there was no evidence of the Romans being the executioners and that it was all the Jews fault.
But once again Sammy the Master debater has come down firmly on the side of the text being valid and all it contains being the truth!!

Once again Sammy I'm just so impressed by your integrity that you are willing to verify and actually praise the truth of a document that exposes the vatican to the charge of antisemitism for 2000years.
Such honesty Sammy!
But I bet they are saying "With supporters like that Da*n Sammy who needs evil atheists to make us look bad!!"

We are a team Sammy!!:D:D

purri
03-09-2011, 05:28 AM
Allie,

Quite a brutal deconstruction if I might say so.

Yet elegant in its narrative.

Allison
03-09-2011, 05:31 AM
Forget the anecdotes from the "sting operations." Planned Parenthood admitted it themselves in sworn testimony before the US Congress. When their federal funding (which was ultimately pulled, to the tune of, IIRC, some $385M) their officials testified, arguing to Congress that pulling their funding which helped provide some 325,000 abortions to poor women nationwide the last year they reported those statistics, would actually SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY because THE GOVERNMENT MONEY NECESSARY TO PROVIDE OTHER SERVICES TO THOSE CHILDREN, IF BORN, WOULD BE MORE THAN THE COST OF THE ABORTIONS PROVIDED BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

Sure sounds "eugenic" to me. Look it up in the Congressional Record, if you want to spend the time. My information is second hand from a reliable news report that was supporting the funding, not opposing it.

Bob, I won't repeat what I used in my reply to Sammy. I assume you read it and now accept that there is a difference between PP's support of a stable population through a variety of techniques and the reprehensible theories of Eugenics which is a whole different thing, all about manipulating the gene composition of a population. Chalk and cheese!

Allison
03-09-2011, 06:54 AM
Allie,

Quite a brutal deconstruction if I might say so.

Yet elegant in its narrative.

Thanks purri, but it's easy when Sammy helps me so much!
I had to have somewhere to play and Sammy's always fun.

I'm not allowed to play in the Oz pol sandbox anymore.
They made a special rule just for me that I'm only allowed to play with the big kids now.

http://i52.tinypic.com/1ha3ph.jpg

PeterSibley
03-09-2011, 07:05 AM
I like the picture of the younger you ! |;)

Allison
03-09-2011, 07:09 AM
Hi Peter, How are you doing?
Hows the block work going?

PeterSibley
03-09-2011, 07:11 AM
No blocks for a few daze , I AM SLOW !! not to mention rough and generally sloppy .I'll render it and stick to wood in future . I've stopped hurting though !

Allison
03-09-2011, 07:18 AM
Hard to build a composting toilet out of wood:D

Glad the back is better.

Keith Wilson
03-09-2011, 07:54 AM
Waddie, re #165, that's a logical fallacy called "begging the question" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question); i.e. assuming what you are trying to demonstrate. You assume that an embryo or fetus is a person in a moral sense, and everything else follows from that. However, that's precisely the question in dispute. That's one major reason that discussions of abortion, even without Sam, are often acrimonious and rarely productive.

Allison
03-09-2011, 08:11 AM
Originally Posted by Allison
So let me hide my eyes and when you spring this distortion on me, I can jump back in horror and pretend that I'm all caught unawares.
Do you want me to squeal all girly like and faint too?
After all it's international Women's Day here and you must be so overjoyed that despite all the successes there are still so many of your kind blocking progress and trying to take away women's rights!

Originally Posted bySam F
You've proved you don't care what happens to young girls caught in sex trafficking - so I rather doubt you'll have the vapors.

How do you manage to come to this rather disgusting conclusion Sammy?
As there is quite clearly no evidence for this revolting comment Sammy, I expect an apology!
I'm done with allowing people to make these sort of attacks on me!

TomF
03-09-2011, 08:22 AM
How do you manage to come to this rather disgusting conclusion Sammy?
As there is quite clearly no evidence for this revolting comment Sammy, I expect an apology!
I'm done with allowing people to make these sort of attacks on me!I truly sympathize, Allison. But this is a recurring pattern for Sam - any number of us have had equally disgusting conclusions made about us in one or another of his posts. If playing true to form he'll not apologize, but continue to justify such sewage while expressing wide-eyed innocence that anyone who obviously "is" what he claims, could possibly take offence at having "the truth" told to them.

Don't let him rile you up to the point that you leave, one way or another. It's diversionary - either he "wins" because the topic shifts to his absurd insult, or he "wins" because someone gets banned, or walks away in disgust and anger. Which has the illusion of ceding the field to his opinion.

There's a reason why many of us simply don't talk with Sam very often anymore, about things which are important to us. It's a shame, as though I disagree with Sam frankly on most things we've discussed, he's very sharp - and my thinking's improved via our various jousts.

Peerie Maa
03-09-2011, 10:13 AM
You assume that an embryo or fetus is a person in a moral sense, and everything else follows from that. However, that's precisely the question in dispute. That's one major reason that discussions of abortion, even without Sam, are often acrimonious and rarely productive.

Last week or so one of our tv channels showed a short that puts this into perspective. A catholic mother did a piece to camera describing her difficulty with bringing a child to term. She suffered four miscarriages before bearing a daughter. She discounted in vitro fertilization because that techniques creates several spare fertilized ova which are discarded. That was the blocker for this catholic mum. Her belief is that at the instant the ova is fertilized a soul is created, so discarding surplus eggs is killing souls in her eyes.
I guess that this is what makes Sam pro life. All of the other sh!+ being just the Sam that we hold dear.

Peerie Maa
03-09-2011, 10:48 AM
Several reasons. Well, people who say Jesus was just a really, wise teacher; tend to not read 90% of his teachings. They have a simplistic idea of what he taught. That's my experience. When you look at all of his teachings, you get a rather crazy man if he is not divine. Of course, the answer to this argument will be that we should just disregard his claims to divinity as non-historical (ie certainly such a wise man would have never said that), but then how do we know. At the end of the day, we either take the gospels pretty much as is, or they become interesting, but not much more.

Example: The golden rule, its nice but not that unique, and everyone likes to point to it. But this: Love God with your whole heart, mind, and soul and Love your neighbor as yourself. That one is pretty unique, but pretty much ignored by those who simply find Jesus a good teacher.

Also, many of His teachings only make sense in the context of who He was and his death/resurrection. I personally consider the beatitudes to be the wisest teachings ever uttered by a human being. But, if Jesus was not ushering in the Kingdom, what's the point of them. Certainly not near as significant, which is why they are pretty much ignored by people who don't believe in Jesus' divinity.

At the end of the day, its hard to follow his teachings without the cross and resurrection when part of His teaching is "Take up your cross and follow me".

I could read this explanation to be that people pick and chose from amongst the teachings, but do not follow them all. That surely is a criticism of those "flock" members who fail. It is not an insight into the validity of the teaching as a way of life with or without the supernatural. As a teacher Jesus used parables and allusions and the full toolkit of methods appropriate to the times in which he lived that He needed to explain new concepts. It was also in a context of a time when practically everyone believed in a deity, so it is not surprising that his lessons were couched in that context.
To put my question a different way, are any of His lessons invalidated or wrong if there is no supernatural element?

TomF
03-09-2011, 11:49 AM
To put my question a different way, are any of His lessons invalidated or wrong if there is no supernatural element?Most of them just hollow out. But I think Jesus can be understood to argue that if you hollow them out far enough, they collapse. Relationship with God is understood as what enables the behaviours you want, in any sustainable way.

pefjr
03-09-2011, 11:57 AM
Most of them just hollow out. But I think Jesus can be understood to argue that if you hollow them out far enough, they collapse. Relationship with God is understood as what enables the behaviours you want, in any sustainable way.Y'know Tom ... just once I'd love you to look beyond the stereotype you've decided describes all possible variations of behaving.

TomF
03-09-2011, 12:04 PM
Y'know Tom ... just once I'd love you to look beyond the stereotype you've decided describes all possible variations of behaving.Perhaps read what you quoted a bit more closely.

"...But I think Jesus can be understood to argue ..."

Yeah, I think Jesus can be understood to argue that without God, good works hollow out. Buddha argued something different.

I'm not about to say that Buddhists haven't developed astonishing compassion, or any such rot. But if I'm answering Peerie's question about if any of Jesus' lessons are invalidated without the supernatural ... I answered that Jesus would say yes.

On a personal level, I also would answer yes - because I find prayer extraordinarily helpful in keeping myself lined up right. For me, relationship with God is pretty important. YMMV.

pefjr
03-09-2011, 12:06 PM
To put my question a different way, are any of His lessons invalidated or wrong if there is no supernatural element? My answer would not be in doubt here. But it's getting hard not to step on toes. By supernatural element, I would assume the resurrection to be a miracle and under that heading of a SNE, while TomF does not. Plus, others have stated that the resurrection is of great importance to the faith of jesus. What I initially thought would be a unifiying question(#128) is now looking more likely to develope into a can of worms with each individual take of the story of jesus. A simple question like this one you have presented should require from the reader only a simple yes or no answer. But they have to give up their miracles and are disable without them.

leikec
03-09-2011, 12:12 PM
Gee whiz....


I tried to reply to this post and the thread was locked---and now I don't remember what I wanted to say.

Oh well, carry on without me, kids.

Pef, I think if I'm shopping for expansive thinking, and if the choice is you or Tom...I guess I have to buy Canadian. :D

I think you are more hunkered down to a particular ideology on this one....


Jeff C

Peerie Maa
03-09-2011, 12:21 PM
Also, many of His teachings only make sense in the context of who He was and his death/resurrection. I personally consider the beatitudes to be the wisest teachings ever uttered by a human being. But, if Jesus was not ushering in the Kingdom, what's the point of them. Certainly not near as significant, which is why they are pretty much ignored by people who don't believe in Jesus' divinity.





I'm not about to say that Buddhists haven't developed astonishing compassion, or any such rot. But if I'm answering Peerie's question about if any of Jesus' lessons are invalidated without the supernatural ... I answered that Jesus would say yes.

On a personal level, I also would answer yes - because I find prayer extraordinarily helpful in keeping myself lined up right. For me, relationship with God is pretty important. YMMV.

It is possible that your answers say more about yourselves than about the teaching. You both report your personal take on the topic.
Tom, your post highlights the issue. You say that for you prayer helps you stay on the straight and narrow. For you that is a beneficial mental discipline. However many of us with no faith, and therefor no discipline of prayer still (should) behave in the way that Jesus taught.
It may be impossible for those with faith to separate the faith from the teaching, even though I have couched the thought experiment in that specific way.

pefjr
03-09-2011, 12:24 PM
Gee whiz....


I tried to reply to this post and the thread was locked---and now I don't remember what I wanted to say.

Oh well, carry on without me, kids.

Pef, I think if I'm shopping for expansive thinking, and if the choice is you or Tom...I guess I have to buy Canadian. :D

I think you are more hunkered down to a particular ideology on this one....


Jeff CFree world trade. Watch out for the tariffs though.

pefjr
03-09-2011, 12:27 PM
Gee whiz....


I tried to reply to this post and the thread was locked---and now I don't remember what I wanted to say.

Oh well, carry on without me, kids.

Pef, I think if I'm shopping for expansive thinking, and if the choice is you or Tom...I guess I have to buy Canadian. :D

I think you are more hunkered down to a particular ideology on this one....


Jeff CI accidently locked it I guess, don't know how unless...... a miracle or slight of hand from unknown source.

leikec
03-09-2011, 12:28 PM
I accidently locked it I guess, don't know how unless...... a miracle or slight of hand from unknown source.

No problem, it was only locked for a minute. :D


Jeff C

peb
03-09-2011, 12:37 PM
However many of us with no faith, and therefor no discipline of prayer still (should) behave in the way that Jesus taught.
It may be impossible for those with faith to separate the faith from the teaching, even though I have couched the thought experiment in that specific way.

Which teachings? You admittedly have no prayer life, why ignore Jesus' teachings on prayer. At what point to you ignore Jesus' teachings and still say you behave in a way that Jesus taught? I am not being critical, and I admit my answer says a lot about myself. I just can't get my hands around how you can have one (the teachings) without the other (the supernatural) when it comes to Jesus.

TomF's answer seems right to me "Most of them just hollow out. But I think Jesus can be understood to argue that if you hollow them out far enough, they collapse". So why pick Jesus as your teacher to follow, when much of what he says you don't believe?

Peerie Maa
03-09-2011, 12:47 PM
Which teachings? You admittedly have no prayer life, why ignore Jesus' teachings on prayer. At what point to you ignore Jesus' teachings and still say you behave in a way that Jesus taught? I am not being critical, and I admit my answer says a lot about myself. I just can't get my hands around how you can have one (the teachings) without the other (the supernatural) when it comes to Jesus.

TomF's answer seems right to me "Most of them just hollow out. But I think Jesus can be understood to argue that if you hollow them out far enough, they collapse". So why pick Jesus as your teacher to follow, when much of what he says you don't believe?

You will realise that I am no bible scholar, and you probably would consider the whole cannon of Jesus' teachings to fill a small book, too much for this vehicle.
However if we consider that the centre of His teaching starts at "Love your neighbor as if your self" and spirals out from there, there is a lot that sets standards for behavior that is not made impossible by a lack of faith.

peb
03-09-2011, 12:51 PM
You will realise that I am no bible scholar, and you probably would consider the whole cannon of Jesus' teachings to fill a small book, too much for this vehicle.
However if we consider that the centre of His teaching starts at "Love your neighbor as if your self" and spirals out from there, there is a lot that sets standards for behavior that is not made impossible by a lack of faith.

But that's not right. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was "Love God with your whole heart, mind, and soul." The one you listed, he said was the second greatest. See my point? I think that would be TomF's point also, you just really hollowed out Jesus' summary on the Law.

Peerie Maa
03-09-2011, 01:11 PM
But that's not right. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was "Love God with your whole heart, mind, and soul." The one you listed, he said was the second greatest. See my point? I think that would be TomF's point also, you just really hollowed out Jesus' summary on the Law.

Peb, to a non believer that first commandment is a nonsense. Would you have me ignore the second lesson, just because the first lesson is not relevant? The first lesson looks inwards, it is about YOUR peace of mind. The second lesson is the unselfish one, as it is about how you treat others.

Nanoose
03-09-2011, 01:17 PM
O.K. you have flogged the virgin birth issue. Now, using accepted scientific methods and principles, explain the ressurection to me. I'm only a simple blackfeller, but if you get hung on a cross after being flogged 36 times with a metal tipped whip and then stabbed with a pilum in the right lung, in the year 0 you are gonna die and you are going to stay dead. This is something I know. I have watched men die from similar injuries and they died in agony. When you can answer quite simple questions without invoking faith you might have a debate, until then it has as much currency as any other set of myths and legends.

There are 5 minimal facts accepted by virtually all scholars in the field that need to be accounted for:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion (attested by non-Christian sources)

2. people reported seeing him alive subsequent to his death by crucifixion and sincerely believed he rose from the dead

3. the tomb was empty (this does not meet the criteria of a minimal fact - 99% agreement; approx. 75% of scholars accept this as historical fact)

4. sudden change of the persecutor Paul

5. conversion of the skeptic James, the brother of Jesus

Any potential theory needs to account for these five. The 'body was stolen' theory and the 'swoon theory' fail to account for all five.

Nanoose
03-09-2011, 01:22 PM
I don't think you can justify killing on economic grounds at any time or in any way. You could claim to be saving the planet from overpopulation perhaps but not just to save a buck.

With increasing economic stress, I can imagine countries setting limits on end of life intervention. You can't?

Peerie Maa
03-09-2011, 01:25 PM
There are 5 minimal facts accepted by virtually all scholars in the field that need to be accounted for:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion (attested by non-Christian sources)

2. people reported seeing him alive subsequent to his death by crucifixion and sincerely believed he rose from the dead

3. the tomb was empty (this does not meet the criteria of a minimal fact - 99% agreement; approx. 75% of scholars accept this as historical fact)

4. sudden change of the persecutor Paul

5. conversion of the skeptic James, the brother of Jesus

Any potential theory needs to account for these five. The 'body was stolen' theory and the 'swoon theory' fail to account for all five.

Deb, only 2 & 3 of those are contentious. You are surely not claiming that death due to crucifixion needs an explanation?

leikec
03-09-2011, 01:30 PM
There are 5 minimal facts accepted by virtually all scholars in the field that need to be accounted for:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion (attested by non-Christian sources)

2. people reported seeing him alive subsequent to his death by crucifixion and sincerely believed he rose from the dead

3. the tomb was empty (this does not meet the criteria of a minimal fact - 99% agreement; approx. 75% of scholars accept this as historical fact)

4. sudden change of the persecutor Paul

5. conversion of the skeptic James, the brother of Jesus

Any potential theory needs to account for these five. The 'body was stolen' theory and the 'swoon theory' fail to account for all five.



When you say "scholars", who are you referring to---theological scholars, or secular biblical history scholars? Both groups?


Jeff C

Bob Cleek
03-09-2011, 01:32 PM
Bob, I won't repeat what I used in my reply to Sammy. I assume you read it and now accept that there is a difference between PP's support of a stable population through a variety of techniques and the reprehensible theories of Eugenics which is a whole different thing, all about manipulating the gene composition of a population. Chalk and cheese!

Except, of course, that PP focuses its "charitable services" on poor people of color. The wealthy white people's population is not increasing. Not only is it "stable," but it is decreasing as a proportion of the total population. Sorry, but I'm not drinking their Kool Aid.

Nanoose
03-09-2011, 01:35 PM
When you say "scholars", who are you referring to---theological scholars, or secular biblical history scholars? Both groups?


Jeff C

Ancient historical, secular and Christian (well, the Christian would hold more than the 5; the 5 are the ones accepted by virtually all - 99%, except for the one point held by only 75% - still a significant number for secular scholars).

pefjr
03-09-2011, 01:36 PM
There are 5 minimal facts accepted by virtually all scholars in the field that need to be accounted for:
Gossip, rumor, scuttlebutt, hearsay are not facts. Here again, you show the habit of confusing facts and fictions. Nothing here to be accounted for.

Nanoose
03-09-2011, 01:37 PM
Deb, only 2 & 3 of those are contentious. You are surely not claiming that death due to crucifixion needs an explanation?

I am saying those 5 facts together need an explanation. I believe resurrection is the most cogent answer, that the swoon theory and stolen body theory fall short of the resurrection explanation for the 5.

George Jung
03-09-2011, 01:51 PM
JR, what 'proof' are you looking for? Newsreel from that time, following the Stations, execution and Resurrection? Newspaper accounts? Death certificate signed/notarized by a 'Dr.' attending the crucifixion?

It's easy to be skeptical (and a bit stubborn - that might be 'natural talent':D) when holding an ancient historical event to modern standards and options.

leikec
03-09-2011, 01:57 PM
JR, what 'proof' are you looking for? Newsreel from that time, following the Stations, execution and Resurrection? Newspaper accounts? Death certificate signed/notarized by a 'Dr.' attending the crucifixion?

It's easy to be skeptical (and a bit stubborn - that might be 'natural talent':D) when holding an ancient historical event to modern standards and options.


Isn't it right to have some skepticism? If not, please tell me why.

Jeff C

pefjr
03-09-2011, 02:08 PM
JR, what 'proof' are you looking for? Newsreel from that time, following the Stations, execution and Resurrection? Newspaper accounts? Death certificate signed/notarized by a 'Dr.' attending the crucifixion?

It's easy to be skeptical (and a bit stubborn - that might be 'natural talent':D) when holding an ancient historical event to modern standards and options.What proofs would you or better yet Nanoose and peb require today? Say the claims were made today, would they take it on hearsay, or need proof?

George Jung
03-09-2011, 02:08 PM
I wouldn't characterize JRs' approach as skeptical. As I read his 'critique', he wants proof akin to what we'd see on CSI. Different times, different options. And while skepticism has its place, so does its first cousin - an open mind. Haven't seen that one much in evidence. (Must be the 'poor' cousin..)

Waddie
03-09-2011, 02:09 PM
Waddie, re #165, that's a logical fallacy called "begging the question" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question); i.e. assuming what you are trying to demonstrate. You assume that an embryo or fetus is a person in a moral sense, and everything else follows from that. However, that's precisely the question in dispute. That's one major reason that discussions of abortion, even without Sam, are often acrimonious and rarely productive.

Here is the definition;


"begging the question," is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."[/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#cite_note-Welton279-2"][ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#cite_note-Welton279-2)

Science has already provided the proof that life begins when DNA combines. Morality is a construct of the human mind, and it is always simply an opinion. But it is not science. Pure science is the search for facts, and the facts in this case are crystal clear. Morality is what we do with science, but it is not science.

You can attempt to rationalize it all you want, but the facts won't change.

regards,
Waddie

George Jung
03-09-2011, 02:09 PM
What you mean - the 'better yet' peb/nanoose?

Have I just been impuned?

Apologize - or I'll invoke my screechy inner-Al on ya!

pefjr
03-09-2011, 02:10 PM
I wouldn't characterize JRs' approach as skeptical. As I read his 'critique', he wants proof akin to what we'd see on CSI. Different times, different options. And while skepticism has its place, so does its first cousin - an open mind. Haven't seen that one much in evidence. (Must be the 'poor' cousin..)You don't want an open mind. You want a follower.

George Jung
03-09-2011, 02:11 PM
Interesting approach, Waddie, and I don't disagree.

I presume you know that it's just this point that is/has been the sticking point in all of the similar 'discussions' to date.

Don't expect concession - it's The Alamo for some folk here.

George Jung
03-09-2011, 02:12 PM
Nah - no followers. They step on my heels, get on my nerves.

Try again.

pefjr
03-09-2011, 02:14 PM
What you mean - the 'better yet' peb/nanoose?

Have I just been impuned?

Apologize - or I'll invoke my screechy inner-Al on ya!Ok include yourself, you answer that question . What proofs would you require?

Actually I have not considered you, as you do not confuse religion with facts. You have been to medical school, so you don't need me to explain the faith and facts of a virgin birth, do you?

George Jung
03-09-2011, 02:18 PM
Has anyone said they could 'prove' the virgin birth? That's an article of faith, and honestly, I've seen some 'wiggle room' on that. Short of having DNA and all the subjects of interest available, I'm unsure how you'd 'prove' it.

But an aside - as far as I've noticed, you seem to be the only party at this party denying Christ was even a real individual. Not much sense even participating if you can't get past that, is there??

pefjr
03-09-2011, 02:25 PM
Has anyone said they could 'prove' the virgin birth? That's an article of faith, and honestly, I've seen some 'wiggle room' on that. Short of having DNA and all the subjects of interest available, I'm unsure how you'd 'prove' it.

But an aside - as far as I've noticed, you seem to be the only party at this party denying Christ was even a real individual. Not much sense even participating if you can't get past that, is there??Are you avoiding the question #206? and you wanted to be asked.

Waddie
03-09-2011, 02:26 PM
With increasing economic stress, I can imagine countries setting limits on end of life intervention. You can't?

So can I. But we won't present the idea in such stark economic terms; we can't afford you, old person, so we're letting you die. We'll find a nicer, more socially acceptable way of telling them (and ourselves) that we can do without them, like, it's best to with-hold care for quality of life reasons. We will rationalize our desperate decision to get rid of the elderly by somehow making it in their best interests, so we can feel better about it.

Do we go to war for purely economic reasons? Never, ever. We don't fight for oil, no matter how essential it is. We fight to liberate people, or spread democracy, or to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. But never, ever, for oil. We kill them for their own good, not for something as selfish as our need for oil.

regards,
Waddie

pefjr
03-09-2011, 02:27 PM
Most Historians and experts on the subject were not invited to this party, wonder why?

George Jung
03-09-2011, 02:31 PM
What part of my answer didn't you like???

And 'Most Historians and experts on the subject were not invited to this party, wonder why?' alludes to - what?


Gotta run - my boss has no sense of humor re: internet on company time.

pefjr
03-09-2011, 03:34 PM
What part of my answer didn't you like???

And 'Most Historians and experts on the subject were not invited to this party, wonder why?' alludes to - what?


Gotta run - my boss has no sense of humor re: internet on company time.I don't see any answer from you, peb or nanoose. #214 stated article of faith. Shoulda stopped there, that's all that is needed. Actually there are some 'today' miracles claimed by christians. Rev. moon for example and the cuban "man christ", and here is a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus that claim to be jesus by miracle. All of these have something in common with the 'christ, the real individual' as you say. They all have no proof of their claims of miracles. Yes, they exist, that's not hard to prove, but that alone in the case of 'christ the real individual' proves what? Just add this barefoot desert dweller to the long list, maybe mark him with a * and label him 'original unproven claimant'.

Allison
03-09-2011, 03:58 PM
What you mean - the 'better yet' peb/nanoose?

Have I just been impuned?

Apologize - or I'll invoke my screechy inner-Al on ya!

Good morning George, you trying to pretend to be funny, I think you need to sit in the corner and practice a bit, that's just lame!:D

AussieBarney
03-09-2011, 04:19 PM
I reckon that the church should have to prove their teachings under "truth in advertising" laws. If they cant prove it they should have to put a caveat in their literature attesting to that fact. Too many people use the church as a method or mechanism to build wealth and/or power. Look to the history of the catholic church.

TomF
03-09-2011, 04:30 PM
With respect, I've known a bunch of clergy in my life, in a bunch of denominations. Some who I agreed with, others with whom I argued pretty violently.

None became wealthy, or set out to. Without exception, these people gave away not only a bigger percentage of their income, but a larger actual $ chunk than most of their parishioners ... while earning much less than others with the same amount of training or responsibility.

One gent I knew had been a farmer - and inherited the oil rights to the farm (outside Edmonton) when his father died. He promptly trained for the ministry, and donated more than his entire salary back to the Overseas Emergency Relief fund of his church. Not to the local congregation, to put into stained glass windows or new carpets.

There are obviously some schmucks out there who become clergy in order to fleece their faithful. They're few.

Waddie
03-09-2011, 04:35 PM
Why are you still arguing about a literal proof that the "virgin birth" was real? It is a metaphor for gosh sakes!!! Included in every major religion as a metaphor!

Maybe re-read post #162.

regards,
Waddie

peb
03-09-2011, 05:22 PM
Peb, to a non believer that first commandment is a nonsense. Would you have me ignore the second lesson, just because the first lesson is not relevant? The first lesson looks inwards, it is about YOUR peace of mind. The second lesson is the unselfish one, as it is about how you treat others.

Not ignore the second, your missing my point. I don't understand how you can accept Jesus' teaching without the "magic and superstition". It is clear that the "magic and superstition" is central part of his teaching. I don't see how you want to follow a madman. Surely you can find teachers to emulate that are more sane. You even talk of following the central core of his teaching, yet you think that core is nonsense.

peb
03-09-2011, 05:26 PM
With respect, I've known a bunch of clergy in my life, in a bunch of denominations. Some who I agreed with, others with whom I argued pretty violently.

None became wealthy, or set out to. Without exception, these people gave away not only a bigger percentage of their income, but a larger actual $ chunk than most of their parishioners ... while earning much less than others with the same amount of training or responsibility.

One gent I knew had been a farmer - and inherited the oil rights to the farm (outside Edmonton) when his father died. He promptly trained for the ministry, and donated more than his entire salary back to the Overseas Emergency Relief fund of his church. Not to the local congregation, to put into stained glass windows or new carpets.

There are obviously some schmucks out there who become clergy in order to fleece their faithful. They're few.

Tom, quit trying to ruin the prejudices of everyone. tsk tsk tsk

George Jung
03-09-2011, 06:57 PM
That is a bit of a bilge-killer.

Just as well - the wheels came off awhile ago.

Nanoose
03-09-2011, 06:59 PM
Did you notice this one, George? Kinda telling, doncha think..... ;)




Actually I have not considered you, as you do not confuse religion with facts. You have been to medical school, so you don't need me to explain the faith and facts of a virgin birth, do you?

Glen Longino
03-09-2011, 07:17 PM
Most Historians and experts on the subject were not invited to this party, wonder why?

Aw, c'mon Bud, you know why!
14 Billion years after God Almighty created the Heavens and the Earth he got lonely and created humans in his own image to keep him company.
Then one day, 14 Billion years later, realizing that His human creations were not worth the powder to blow them to Hell, He sent His Son Jesus to die for their sins. Get it?
No?
I figgered!;)

Bob Cleek
03-09-2011, 09:10 PM
Aw, c'mon Bud, you know why!
14 Billion years after God Almighty created the Heavens and the Earth he got lonely and created humans in his own image to keep him company.
Then one day, 14 Billion years later, realizing that His human creations were not worth the powder to blow them to Hell, He sent His Son Jesus to die for their sins. Get it?
No?
I figgered!;)

Yea, that's pretty much the explanation any human has been able to come up with so far that seems to have any legs, and God knows, lots have tried.

Keith Wilson
03-09-2011, 10:34 PM
Any potential theory needs to account for these five. There are lots of different religions. The miracles claimed by Christianity are by no means unique, or even unusual, nor is its origin and spread. Just about every religion, whether major, minor, or otherwise, has miracle stories. They mostly happened a long time go, and are supported only by tradition based on rumor. We don't need to account for any of them. Noting the near-universal human tendency to believe all sort of unlikely things, particularly those without much education, is more than sufficient.


Except, of course, that PP focuses its "charitable services" on poor people of color. This a variation on the same vile lie that Sam keeps repeating. I had expected much better of you, Bob. Planned Parenthood serves anyone who walks in the door, without regard to their skin color. And I should point out the obvious, that going there is voluntary. If a woman doesn't want an abortion, she most certainly doesn't have to have one.

Keith Wilson
03-09-2011, 10:40 PM
With respect, I've known a bunch of clergy in my life, in a bunch of denominations. Some who I agreed with, others with whom I argued pretty violently. None became wealthy, or set out to.Quite right. There are a very few, mostly evangelical protestants of one kind or another, but they're a small minority (the infamous Bakkers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bakker) were one example). At one point in history the Catholic Church amassed an enormous amount of wealth and power, but that was a long time ago. There are far more likely ways of getting rich, if that's your goal.

Nanoose
03-10-2011, 12:04 AM
There are lots of different religions. The miracles claimed by Christianity are by no means unique, or even unusual, nor is its origin and spread. Just about every religion, whether major, minor, or otherwise, has miracle stories. They mostly happened a long time go, and are supported only by tradition based on rumor. We don't need to account for any of them. Noting the near-universal human tendency to believe all sort of unlikely things, particularly those without much education, is more than sufficient.


From this comment it appears you didn't 'get' the post.
It's not about miracles, or miracle stories, or them happening a long time ago and based merely on tradition or rumor.
It is about historical scholars agreeing that those 5 points are factual, and from that asking how we best account for that data.

Keith Wilson
03-10-2011, 12:36 AM
1. Crucifixion was a standard method of execution at the time. Lots of people were crucified, nothing at all unusual.
2. This is a miracle story. Any report of such things is impossible to judge after 2000 years.
3. Non-supernatural explanations for a missing body are not hard to come by.
4 and 5: Conversions to one religion or another are a dime a dozen. Nothing needs to be explained at all.

The thing is, Deb, you can certainly believe what you like. I hope it does you great good; I certainly won't try and talk you out of it very hard. However, I have a huge problem with the claim that there is some kind of reliable evidence for Jesus's resurrection, in the same sense that there is reliable evidence that the Romans lost the battle of Cannae or that Tiberius Gracchus was murdered. There simply isn't any reliable evidence either way for a one-time occurence 2000 years ago which if it had occurred, would violate all known laws of nature..

Allison
03-10-2011, 01:41 AM
1. Crucifixion was a standard method of execution at the time. Lots of people were crucified, nothing at all unusual.
2. This is a miracle story. Any report of such things is impossible to judge after 2000 years.
3. Non-supernatural explanations for a missing body are not hard to come by.
4 and 5: Conversions to one religion or another are a dime a dozen. Nothing needs to be explained at all.

The thing is, Deb, you can certainly believe what you like. I hope it does you great good; I certainly won't try and talk you out of it very hard. However, I have a huge problem with the claim that there is some kind of reliable evidence for Jesus's resurrection, in the same sense that there is reliable evidence that the Romans lost the battle of Cannae or that Tiberius Gracchus was murdered. There simply isn't any reliable evidence either way for a one-time occurence 2000 years ago which if it had occurred, would violate all known laws of nature..

I'd agree with that keith. A neat polite summary of what we've been trying to explain for a few days now.

Chip-skiff
03-10-2011, 01:47 AM
Funny. I never believed the resurrection thing, even when I was a kid.

Allison
03-10-2011, 01:57 AM
Funny. I never believed the resurrection thing, even when I was a kid.

Me either and I was supposed to be a Catholic!
I used to argue with the priest in the classes that I had to go to about all sorts of things.
My brothers loved it, they would get me started and then sit back and let me argue with the priest till it was time to go.
My parents were really upset when the priest asked them to withdraw me but let my brothers stay!:D

Peerie Maa
03-10-2011, 07:28 AM
I used to argue with the priest in the classes that I had to go to about all sorts of things.
My brothers loved it, they would get me started and then sit back and let me argue with the priest till it was time to go.


Nothing new here.

Move along people.

Nanoose
03-10-2011, 10:05 AM
1. Crucifixion was a standard method of execution at the time. Lots of people were crucified, nothing at all unusual.
2. This is a miracle story. Any report of such things is impossible to judge after 2000 years.
3. Non-supernatural explanations for a missing body are not hard to come by.
4 and 5: Conversions to one religion or another are a dime a dozen. Nothing needs to be explained at all.

Paul was antagonistic to the new sect - a persecutor, actually. James, not so much, but he definitely didn't believe his brother was the messiah. Something significant enough happened to change their minds.



...I have a huge problem with the claim that there is some kind of reliable evidence for Jesus's resurrection, ...There simply isn't any reliable evidence either way for a one-time occurence 2000 years ago which if it had occurred, would violate all known laws of nature...

The claim is those 5 facts need accounting for somehow. Various theories have been proposed, e.g. Jesus didn't really die (swoon theory); the disciples stole the body from the tomb; the body wasn't buried but was thrown out in the pile like all other crucifixion victims and eaten by wild dogs. Whatever happened needs to best account for all 5 minimal facts.

Beyond the 5 minimal I think there are other significant questions that need figuring out. What happened that turned a band of men from running scared to leaders of a new sect - that so fundamentally and totally changed them? If this was just another one of numerous claimed messiahs of the times, why did all the other movements disband and die upon their deaths but not this one? And why on earth would a group of people with no idea of 'resurrection,' no belief of one, no thought of one, out of the blue claim to have seen one? They knew just as well as you, Keith, that dead means dead. 2000 years has made no difference in that regard.

Yes. Of course a resurrection would violate all known laws of nature. You're right. No one is claiming differently. Something else was going on that needs explanation. And I think that is the point.

SamSam
03-10-2011, 02:54 PM
And why on earth would a group of people with no idea of 'resurrection,' no belief of one, no thought of one, out of the blue claim to have seen one? They knew just as well as you, Keith, that dead means dead. 2000 years has made no difference in that regard.

Yes. Of course a resurrection would violate all known laws of nature. You're right. No one is claiming differently. Something else was going on that needs explanation. And I think that is the point.
The parallel between these traditional beliefs and the later resurrection of Jesus was not lost on the early Christians, as Justin Martyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr) argued: “when we say … Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus.” (1 Apol. 21).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection#Ancient_non-Abrahamic_religions_in_the_Middle_East

Bob Cleek
03-10-2011, 03:24 PM
"Funny. I never believed in the resurrection thing, even when I was akid.

Me either and I was supposed to be a Catholic!
I used to argue with the priest in the classes that I had to go to about all sorts of things.
My brothers loved it, they would get me started and then sit back and let me argue with the priest till it was time to go.
My parents were really upset when the priest asked them to withdraw me but let my brothers stay!:D

Not to worry. It's not at all believable on any rational basis. But, sooner or later, everybody gets knocked off their donkey on the road to Damascus. One way or the other.

pefjr
03-10-2011, 04:02 PM
"When you fall off your donkey, Bob, does that help you swallow all that for the truth"? words(or to that effect) of my grandpa.

PeterSibley
03-10-2011, 05:14 PM
Not to worry. It's not at all believable on any rational basis. But, sooner or later, everybody gets knocked off their donkey on the road to Damascus. One way or the other.

Once , a long time ago I knew a group of Christian kids my age .I liked them ,they were all good people so I approached the minister or priest (can't remember which brand it was ) and said ...convince me .I really wanted to be able to buy the story as I wanted in . I had been raised in the story and knew it pretty well but it had never held water ...just something they told you about at Church .

I gave him 2 hours and dropped all walls .At the end it was just a story and not even slightly believable .A pity in some emotional way as the story helps and strengthens some .Belief isn't something I can do though .They is no reason to accept something as truth that quite obviously flies in the face of any reasonable examination .It's like being told there is a place rocks float in air ...and I don't mean in space .It's just silly .

Bob Cleek
03-10-2011, 08:28 PM
At the end it was just a story and not even slightly believable .A pity in some emotional way as the story helps and strengthens some .Belief isn't something I can do though .They is no reason to accept something as truth that quite obviously flies in the face of any reasonable examination .It's like being told there is a place rocks float in air ...and I don't mean in space .It's just silly .

On the face of it, it IS silly. That's the difference between faith and reason. It's silly because it's man's attempt to describe the indescribeable. What can we know of God that God doesn't deign to reveal to us... and how do we know it when we do. Like pornography, you can't define it exactly, but you know it when you see it. I doubt God cares whether we believe the story one way or another, so long as we do our best to get to know Him. Different stories all try to describe the same thing in different ways, all the same as the same thing is said differently in different languages. Does God appreciate the love of a devout Muslim any less than a devout Christian. I think not.

Not surprisingly, even Christ Himself had some problems selling his resurrection to rational thinkers:

On the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark, and saw the stone removed from the tomb.

So she ran and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don't know where they put him."

So Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb.

They both ran, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and arrived at the tomb first;

he bent down and saw the burial cloths there, but did not go in.

When Simon Peter arrived after him, he went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths 6 there,

and the cloth that had covered his head, not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place.

Then the other disciple also went in, the one who had arrived at the tomb first, and he saw and believed.

For they did not yet understand the scripture that he had to rise from the dead.

Then the disciples returned home.

But Mary stayed outside the tomb weeping. And as she wept, she bent over into the tomb

and saw two angels in white sitting there, one at the head and one at the feet where the body of Jesus had been.

And they said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken my Lord, and I don't know where they laid him."

When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus there, but did not know it was Jesus.

Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?" She thought it was the gardener and said to him, "Sir, if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him."

Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbouni," which means Teacher.

Jesus said to her, "Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Mary of Magdala went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and what he told her.

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you."

When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.

(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.

Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.

So the other disciples said to him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe."

Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you."

Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe."

Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.

But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Caravaggio_-_The_Incredulity_of_Saint_Thomas.jpg/350px-Caravaggio_-_The_Incredulity_of_Saint_Thomas.jpg

ishmael
03-10-2011, 10:51 PM
If you need miracles, there is no shortage of them in the Levant of that time. I'm pretty sure most are paste. Superstition.

As to whether or no Jesus worked some isn't relevant to me. I think, if you need a miracle worker you should look elsewhere. Here was an enlightened human being, stop fighting so harshly about what you believe. When you kill your Israeli brother, you kill your brother.

PeterSibley
03-10-2011, 11:08 PM
On the face of it, it IS silly. That's the difference between faith and reason. It's silly because it's man's attempt to describe the indescribeable. What can we know of God that God doesn't deign to reveal to us... and how do we know it when we do. Like pornography, you can't define it exactly, but you know it when you see it. I doubt God cares whether we believe the story one way or another, so long as we do our best to get to know Him. Different stories all try to describe the same thing in different ways, all the same as the same thing is said differently in different languages. Does God appreciate the love of a devout Muslim any less than a devout Christian. I think not.
]

Thanks for that Bob , a very encouraging thing to read from a Christian ! I made a similar suggestion to my Christian neighbours recently , decent kindly people but not gifted with much subtlety of thought .I was scolded in strong terms for even suggesting such ..... Islam was the religion of the Devil !!! and that was the end of that .

For me ,God , in whatever form is revealed within the context of a persons culture and spirituality .As many faces as are needed ,if one cannot be recognised there is always another . Not exactly the dogma of any particular religious practise , but my experience .

My neighbours have started speaking to me again ...which is good , I am forgiven !

purri
03-11-2011, 03:26 AM
The catholic church should embrace Judaism for they would not exist without their pregenitors.

Bob Cleek
03-11-2011, 05:47 PM
The catholic church should embrace Judaism for they would not exist without their pregenitors.

If you knew more about the Catholic Church, you'd know that it does. Perhaps more expressly so now than ever. If you believe Christ is alive and well, you have to also recognize that Christ IS Jewish. Quintessentially.

St. Paul recognized the Jewishness of what came to be called Christianity right from the get-go. Here's what he told the early Christians of Rome when they blamed the Jews for Christ's death:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? Of course not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

If the firstfruits are holy, so is the whole batch of dough; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place and have come to share in the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. If you do boast, consider that you do not support the root; the root supports you.

Indeed you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe.

For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either.

See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

And they also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated one, how much more will they who belong to it by nature be grafted back into their own olive tree.

I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise (in) your own estimation: a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in, and thus all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come out of Zion, he will turn away godlessness from Jacob; and this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

In respect to the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

George Jung
03-11-2011, 07:01 PM
Just an observation, but - have you noticed how much of the criticism against christianity, in general, and the RCC, specifically, has it's genesis in an ignorance of and a prejudice against 'christianity', ie, a strawman construction, vs its true nature?

In defense, I suspect the majority of folk, including those nominally self-identifying as christian, are equally as ignorant. That's not meant to lambast; it's simply an observation.

Nanoose
03-11-2011, 07:05 PM
Just an observation, but - have you noticed how much of the criticism against christianity, in general, and the RCC, specifically, has it's genesis in an ignorance of and a prejudice against 'christianity', ie, a strawman construction, vs its true nature?

In defense, I suspect the majority of folk, including those nominally self-identifying as christian, are equally as ignorant. That's not meant to lambast; it's simply an observation.

Yes, I've noticed that too.

Allison
03-11-2011, 07:27 PM
Just an observation, but - have you noticed how much of the criticism against christianity, in general, and the RCC, specifically, has it's genesis in an ignorance of and a prejudice against 'christianity', ie, a strawman construction, vs its true nature?

In defense, I suspect the majority of folk, including those nominally self-identifying as christian, are equally as ignorant. That's not meant to lambast; it's simply an observation.
Of course George no-one would ever think that you are making a snide and pretty shallow attack on those who have presented a view that is different to that held by a few of the believers here.
The idea that you might be trying to stir the pot for your own gratification would never cross anyone's mind. Such behaviour would be equally disrespectful to both sides of the debate and we know that you would never engage in such behaviour George.

George Jung
03-11-2011, 07:30 PM
Actually, I'd classify myself as 'mostly ignorant' on this topic.

I wonder what that rant says about you?